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 14/05/2025 - 13:05

            @JIMB0: Good for you. And the empty room paradigm is lia huge step away from ppl sitting on empty homes for selfish reasons. That sort of thing wouldn't have been done a cpl of decades ago. Little Johnny's 'greed is good' has come home(less) to roost. Morality has left the building

  • V2L on 13/05/2025 - 22:28
    +6

    i will never own a vacant home but it's an interesting observation that the ones crying strongly for a vacancy tax would absolutely bristle at other aspects of "personal freedom being taken away" and "big government telling them what to do"

    • Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 22:32
      -3

      How do you manage to get that massive long bow of yours through the average doorway?

      • V2L on 13/05/2025 - 22:46
        +4

        ever tried walking sideways?

        • Protractor on 14/05/2025 - 09:39

          It would be exiting out the other side before the end was in the 'in door'

    • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 11:34

      Really? I had the reverse observation. Some of the people getting all vocal about opposing a hypothetical vacancy tax seem to otherwise absolutely love authoritarian governance.
      I assume they're mostly rusted on labour voters who also benefitted from the last 30 years of property boom and they can't resolve their cognitive dissonance.

      • Protractor on 14/05/2025 - 12:11

        Luckily for you, them rusted on Labour voters are another country's problem

  • Ade99 on 14/05/2025 - 07:56

    It leads to Councils charging for empty bedrooms….already been tried and failed badly

  • Trekky on 14/05/2025 - 09:02

    I know of 3 properties that are 'empty' - a 2 story house round the corner from me. Has been empty for over 5 years now. An old lady used to live there. A friend lives in Goulburn but has a 2 bedroom unit at Bankstown - this is empty too. She uses it when she comes to the big smoke 3 or 4 times a year. And another friend just completed knockdown/rebuild with an attached granny flat, but has no intention of renting that out…..

  • 2esc on 14/05/2025 - 09:20

    Lots of farmers buy adjoining properties and the houses end up vacant(they want the land). I know at least 25 out of town vacant homes in my shire. Some eventually fall apart a little bit of roofing lifts then over a few years gets progressively worse.

    Some farmers do it tough but others throw potential income away and valuable property.

    • Protractor on 14/05/2025 - 09:37

      Tough? Protected species.

  • 82norm on 14/05/2025 - 10:40
    +2

    So let’s tax individuals due to government failings, sounds like a brilliant idea - not.

    • Protractor on 14/05/2025 - 10:56

      That's how it works. Except for the tax avoiders, like politicians mates and multinationals,mining magnates and RW media AHs

  • trapper on 14/05/2025 - 11:42
    +1

    The government creates this problem to begin with.

    People are reluctant to rent out temporarily vacant homes due to capital gains tax implications. With no offsets available, they end up paying income tax on the rent and facing additional costs and hassles when they eventually sell.

    Seniors don't want to downsize because they’re hit with stamp duty.

    • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 11:54

      The government creates this problem to begin with.

      Yes.

      But you missed the elephant in the room.

    • pogichinoy on 14/05/2025 - 12:40

      To be fair, the govt does a piss poor job with most if not all things.

      So by the govt delegating the private rental market to Aussie citizens, it removes the burden of them as they've already messed up public/social housing.

    • Randolph Duke on 14/05/2025 - 13:02
      +1

      With no offsets available,

      No offsets? Any cost associated with the property can be used as a tax deductible offset.

      they end up paying income tax on the rent

      If you're paying a lot of tax it generally means you're earning (or have earnt) a lot of money. Peoples fear of positive gearing property is strange to me, it means you're actually making money on the property, not clawing back expenses at cents in the dollar.

      • trapper on 14/05/2025 - 14:03

        No offsets? Any cost associated with the property can be used as a tax deductible offset.

        If a property is inherited or temporarily vacant, the mortgage may be minimal or nonexistent, so there’s little motivation to rent it out given the tax complications when it’s sold.

        A heavily mortgaged home is a different case - it’s rarely left empty because covering the mortgage on a vacant property is a huge expense.

        • Randolph Duke on 14/05/2025 - 14:40

          If a property is inherited or temporarily vacant, the mortgage may be minimal or nonexistent, so there’s little motivation to rent it out given the tax complications when it’s sold.

          If you’re in a position to have $500k+ tied up in property, and CGT is enough to stop you earning money probably not struggling too badly. I don’t mind VIC land tax on second properties personally, although for people with holiday homes I can understand the frustrations.

        • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 14:41

          You've left out the opportunity costs of deploying investable funds more effectively.

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

            @tenpercent: You have to sell it to unlock those funds…

            • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 14:51

              @trapper: Or borrow against it. Or rent it out.

              • trapper on 14/05/2025 - 15:03
                +1

                @tenpercent: Borrow against it… and buy another property? lol, now the evil land owner has even more real estate.

                If they borrow against it they now have to pay a mortgage, which isn't tax deductible. (unless they used that mortgage to fund some other investment)

                Either way, they’re now stuck with a mortgage to cover, forcing them to rent out the property to cover that, which creates tax complications when it's eventually sold. The very situation they were trying to avoid in the first place.

                • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 15:12

                  @trapper: They can invest in other things besides more real estate. Plenty of other asset classes.

                  And the "tax complications" may be worth it. Especially if they avoid an empty house tax.

                  • trapper on 14/05/2025 - 18:48

                    @tenpercent:

                    And the "tax complications" may be worth it.

                    If it is worth it, then the house may be rented. If it's not, then it's not.

                    • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 19:36

                      @trapper: And if not then they get slugged with the empty house tax.

                      Besides main residence capital gains tax exemption may not apply if it's just a holiday house. How's that for complications?

                      • trapper on 14/05/2025 - 19:56

                        @tenpercent: Well I agree there.

                        The government created this situation with their tax rules and stamp duties, and now they want to try to 'fix' it with another tax.

                        This new tax will mainly sting holiday home owners.

                        • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 19:59
                          -1

                          @trapper:

                          The government created this situation with their tax rules and stamp duties

                          …and allowing massive immigration in excess of availability of accommodation for everyone.

                          This new tax will mainly sting holiday home owners.

                          Agreed.

                          • trapper on 14/05/2025 - 20:27

                            @tenpercent:

                            and allowing massive immigration in excess of availability of accommodation for everyone.

                            Yes agreed.

  • congo on 14/05/2025 - 12:38
    +3

    I am struggling with the one mortgage.
    I don't know how some people can accumulate over 20+ properties.
    I recall reading somewhere that 1% of investors own 25% of the market.

    The problem with the Aussie housing market is that 1% who owns 25%. I don't know who they are but they shouldn't be allowed any tax benefits.

    • UltimateAI on 14/05/2025 - 13:21
      +2

      Because that's your own mortgage. They likely purchased their first house as an investment and didn't live in it.
      Then used that equity to buy another.. (rinse and repeat)… and the more they borrow the lower the interest rates they can negotiate. Our entire system rewards those who have money and take risks. If you lose money on one investment, claim it as a loss against another win.

      • congo on 14/05/2025 - 17:13
        +1

        So they buy an investment property and then buy a 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc and the bank will keep leading them money?
        This is only if their investment property appreciated in value significantly? Or do they use the prior investments as security?

        They would have a huge amount of debt and repayments each month.
        If the markets slows down or if they can't lease out their property, they will struggle to make the repayments and may have to sell some?

        • UltimateAI on 14/05/2025 - 17:43
          +3

          True but look at history, it’s worked out well.
          More immigrants increases demand and prices.
          We live in a giant pyramid scheme.

          • congo on 14/05/2025 - 18:13
            +2

            @UltimateAI: Property in Japan boom in the 1980s and crashed in the 90s. China's property market is crashing now.
            The Aussie property market "bubble" is surely going to bust sometime in the future, right? Or is there something special about Australia?

            • trapper on 14/05/2025 - 18:54

              @congo:

              Property in Japan boom in the 1980s and crashed in the 90s. China's property market is crashing now.

              Very few immigrants in both places.

              • Protractor on 15/05/2025 - 20:55
                -1

                @trapper: Now foreigners are hoovering up Japanese properties (cheap). I feel sorry for the locals. It's the goose that laid the golden egg, all over again.The culture and ethos that ppl love most about Japan will be the 1st casualty, and sadly it's already begun.

            • UltimateAI on 14/05/2025 - 22:33

              @congo: Japans property boom was similar to immigration, everyone was rushing into the main cities and caused the mother of all bubbles.
              What caused the crash is a long story still debated to this day.
              Experts have been warning for years we will have a crash, and you know what, house prices could halve and many investors won't loose out while rents keep comming in. So no issue while you are meeting your payments.
              Put 4 experts in a room and all will have very different opinions, at the end of the day policy can change and anything can happen.
              But while net immigration is high (Aus has the highest immigrant rate in the world), we can keep propping up the Pyramid.
              A time may come when\where people want to exit \ leave Australia, natural disaster, war, catastrophic event.. Life is full of unknowns.
              I'm old and have lived through many crashes, at the end of the day if you don't need to sell and don't sell you loose nothing, except equity that impacts your borrowing ability.

              • congo on 16/05/2025 - 13:10

                @UltimateAI: Thanks. I think the key point is "if you can continue to rent it out and you can make the repyments" then this approach is solid.
                Seems like immigration is a large factor to pump up renters

                However the below article seem to suggest that immigration isn't the problem.

                https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/migrants-are-not-to-b…

                I think only 1/3 of Australia's population are renters so there wouldn't be enough voters/support to remove negative gearing and other investors tax incentives?

                So base on this logic, property prices should continue to raise, until councils change zoning and allow for higher density apartments.

                • UltimateAI on 16/05/2025 - 13:52

                  @congo: The article is 100% factually correct, bit like all the media reporting often quoted out of context or misleading.

                  Immigrants are not the primary reason or the only reason, which is the TAX system and investors. I cited immigration as a key reason \ significant factor propping up the demand side of the market.

                  • Majority of Immigrants rent in the first few years, investors and banks love this. It's a small % of the population actively competing for property, driving up prices.

                  When articles reference years where property prices increased despite negative immigration, fail to consider other significant events such as covid impacting the building industry and cashed up investors taking advantage of lower interest rates purchasing property. We had a hell of a lot of empty stock, arguably going to waste, hence the idea of taxing vacant properties. (ie: original post). Also AirBNB's play a big part.

                  A bit like analysing stock , if in doubt zoom out, the trend is your friend.

            • rawm on 17/05/2025 - 09:47

              @congo: Hahah this line's been doing the rounds since at least 2010. A tale as old as time.

              Different markets, and we're tied to the hip with the US and friends. One day the chooks will come home to roost… could be 2060, could be Tuesday.

        • trapper on 14/05/2025 - 18:52
          +4

          So they buy an investment property and then buy a 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc and the bank will keep leading them money?

          Yes, as long as you have sufficient equity and rental income, the bank will be satisfied.

          People own far more than just a few residential properties - there are loans worth billions for commercial real estate.

  • pogichinoy on 14/05/2025 - 12:39

    Ridiculous proposal.

    Just as bad as rent control, and interest rate freeze.

  • LFO on 14/05/2025 - 13:09
    +1

    Problem is most of those houses are own by our politicians.
    Apparently half a trillion dollars in Real Estate is own by politicians.

    Wholeheartedly agree with a YES but chances and dim …

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

      I know politicians are in the ponzi scheme too but "half a trillion dollars" leaves me skeptical.
      Do you have a source for that?

      • Protractor on 14/05/2025 - 17:05
        +1

        "I've told you a thousand times today, not to exaggerate"

      • LFO on 15/05/2025 - 12:43
        -1

        Do you have a source for that?

        Did you try Google?

        • Protractor on 15/05/2025 - 20:58

          500 billion? eh? Most are owned by pollies eh?
          Mmm hmm

  • UltimateAI on 14/05/2025 - 13:18
    +1

    Yes and also weekend rentals such as Air-BNB, absolutely proven to price out home buyers.

    Yes I am guilty so this will impact me, but the current system is a rort with bs claims investment properties lead to affordable housing.
    Facts are it is 100% the opposite, reduce \ eliminate investment properties, house prices fall significantly increasing affordability and bank and government revenue will fall. (higher the prices the higher the revenue, banks also make more from investments than residential loans).

    But that's the issue, politicians and heaps of voters like myself would be negatively impacted, not to mention the banks run this country.
    So no there will never be any major policy change. There may be a token change to remove negative gearing, but seriously now if anyone is negatively gearing an investment property they have bigger issues.

  • Morphio25 on 14/05/2025 - 15:19
    +2

    Nope, if the owner wants it to sit vacant then it sits vacant. Why should they have to pay extra tax over and above what they already have to pay just because you want to live there? People work hard to be able to afford investment properties, so good luck to them if they can afford to have one sit vacant for any length of time. Myself I'd want a tenant in there at all times so I can collect their rent.

    Before you ask, no, I don't own a second house.

  • R4 on 14/05/2025 - 15:23

    Nay.

    The UK is currently introducing a 100% council tax (similar to our shire rates) on 2nd properties in many parts of the country and it's basically not working out as planned.

    It's a slippery slope if you start punishing citizens for having empty properties. I have no real problem applying that to non-citizens and non-residents though.

  • xavster on 14/05/2025 - 16:24
    +1

    This one has been done already, the 2021 census was during COVD and hundreds of thousands of international students and non-citizens were told to get out of Australia and return to their home countries.

    See: https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/brief/are-there-1-million-…

    Excerpt:

    Dwellings are identified as unoccupied for a number of reasons such as:

    homes are being renovated
    homes being sold as vacant possession
    newly built or bought homes where no one has moved in yet
    rental homes awaiting new tenants
    people living away temporarily from home during the census count (travelling or visiting other homes)
    homes are deemed unliveable
    subject to a probate application or other legal proceedings
    holiday homes
    homes owned by people currently living overseas
    homes being land banked, that is held vacant until the local area economics (or personal circumstances) make it more profitable to sell or redevelop the property.

  • SydneySpendthrift on 14/05/2025 - 16:37
    +2

    This sounds like a good idea on its face, but here are a few thoughts to the contrary:
    - most simply, the government loves any excuse to add a tax or take away rights. They can come up with justifications about how it's to help you, but history has shown we they don't actually care about us.
    - what might start out as a tax we all agree with, will likely creep and expand in scope until its no longer representative of its original purpose
    - as another commenter pointed out, it might be difficult to agree upon a threshold after which an unoccupied property becomes taxable, or exemptions to the plan

    That being said I am not entirely against this idea, however I would prefer to see them outlaw or target land+dwellings owned by non-citizens and corporations first.

  • TightAl on 14/05/2025 - 17:07

    Maybe people don't want to fill in the census… Did you consider that?
    There's no way there's 1 million homes unoccupied

  • R4 on 14/05/2025 - 17:53

    Massively reduce migration (all migration apart from skilled).

    Not the only cause of our housing problems but a big factor none the less.

    • freefall101 on 14/05/2025 - 18:59
      +1

      Most migration has been students, temporary workers and tourists, who bring in lots and lots of money

      Once you take them out, along with Australian and New Zealand citizens, you're left with about 90k people a year out of the almost 700k people who arrived last year. 40K of that is other temporary visas, which had the same number of arrivals as exits.

      So, how are you going to replace all that university revenue? And do you expect people to start moving into university accommodation, student share houses, backpacker hostels and whatever tin hut we shove people into when they're picking fruit in the middle of nowhere?

      We could slash immigration, but all that will do is push up unemployment. We'd be better off changing migration to allow far more tradies in. Due to the nature of trades, it's near impossible to get a working visa in this country for it, because the projects only last a few months (so no one gets employed for years on end), it's mostly small companies who don't have the clout for bringing in immigrants or the jobs aren't listed as having shortages, even though they absolutely do and it shows in the dropping number of houses we build because it's too expensive to build due to the salaries demanded in trades.

      • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 19:41
        -1

        Oh no universities will lose revenue…. and the rising tide of homelessness at 10 thousand extra each and every month will come to a roaring halt and the existing 250k + homeless will have a chance to find accommodation to rent.

        Oh but won't someone think of the universities, the backpacker hostels and the fruit farmers who don't want to pay their workers award rates. /s

        • freefall101 on 14/05/2025 - 20:55
          +1

          Oh but won't someone think of the universities, the backpacker hostels and the fruit farmers who don't want to pay their workers award rates. /s

          I think you missed my point by a pretty wide margin there.

          Unless we just start stuffing homeless people into backpacker hostels and fruit farms and calling it a day.

          • tenpercent on 15/05/2025 - 07:11

            @freefall101:

            Unless we just start stuffing homeless people into backpacker hostels and fruit farms and calling it a day.

            That's not where the majority of the +38k net migrants per month are staying.

  • Make it so on 14/05/2025 - 19:31
    +1

    Jehovah witnesses estimate the number to be much higher.

  • niknikniknik on 14/05/2025 - 20:28
    +1

    Cut immigration, and refugee allowances. Problem solved. Only allow those with absolutely critical skills, or those bringing a significant investment injection - and a hard block on those that will be net drains on societal resources.

    • baldur on 16/05/2025 - 06:00

      Lol.

    • rawm on 17/05/2025 - 09:56

      How do you even police that? And where do you draw the line for “absolutely critical” or “net drain”?

      It’s all subjective.

      Cut students and you gut education, retail, housing and our regional reputation. Sounds good in theory, but would backfire harder than it helps.

      • niknikniknik on 17/05/2025 - 12:44

        They already have methods of controlling it. E.g. migration visas exist for critical skills which must be state or business sponsored. Making these requirements slightly firmer is easy. Visas also exist where starting/purchasing a business and employing X Australians is required. And visas exist where cash investment of $X million dollars are required. Prioritise these 3 visa classes, and get rid of or limit the rest (including asylum seekers - as the reality is that many abuse this privilege)

        Student visas are also easy to police. They just need to do a better job of enforcing those who don't attend and complete courses in a reasonable period of time. Those are the ones that are clearly here just to work and reside.

  • Jaspa7 on 14/05/2025 - 20:44

    the second the government taxes my assets.. I would get sell off said 'assets' as they have become liabilities

    • tempco on 14/05/2025 - 21:27
      +3

      that's the point

      • Jaspa7 on 15/05/2025 - 09:59

        that's my point
        not saying it's a 'good' or 'bad' thing..
        just that it might cascade into huge losses for anyone with property
        (people don't realise how much is inadvertently in property - inheritances, workplaces etc.)
        and I don't think it will make rent any cheaper either, as the supply/demand equation hasn't changed and landlords will be wanting to recoup losses.

        • Protractor on 17/05/2025 - 12:51

          Huh? If this was a thing some ppl would sell some homes.That's called adding to supply. And yes, those sold homes are no longer an ongoing investment for said 'seller'. They become (wait for it) a home.

          • Jaspa7 on 18/05/2025 - 16:13

            @Protractor: except that it doesn't really add to supply - you still have the same amount of houses, and the same amount of people needing a home.
            the best way to see the effects is to take it to the pathological extreme:
            government taxes $100 per square m per year..
            your typical 20x20m house now costs 40k per year extra.
            house prices fall by roughly 50%, but cost of owning/renting stays roughly the same.
            the supply/demand hasn't changed at all - you still have the same amount of people and the same amount of houses

            • Protractor on 18/05/2025 - 16:29

              @Jaspa7: What are you on?
              If some ppl sell (into market) some houses that are not on the current market, how is that not adding to supply

              • Jaspa7 on 18/05/2025 - 17:06

                @Protractor: ? Houses that are not currently 'on the market' are still being rented out. What people are willing to pay to have a roof over their heads, rent or buy, hasn't changed.
                Unless of course the government now uses this extra income to fund more houses

                • Protractor on 18/05/2025 - 17:54

                  @Jaspa7: ??? Read what I said & what your first and second replies were. Your responses are either ignoring what I wrote(and ignoring logic & maths) or you're being deliberately obtuse. More houses put on the market = more houses available on the market.

                  • Jaspa7 on 18/05/2025 - 21:06
                    +1

                    @Protractor: ? i thought I've communicated, multiple times, the same point that addressees what you wrote , quite clearly

                    the situation. has. not. changed.
                    you want logic/math, fine:
                    total number of houses(available to rent + available to buy) / number of people needing housing = same number, regardless of what economic levers you pull.
                    hell, give every homeless person $1million -> houses go up by $1mill
                    tax every property mogul $1million per property -> sure houses crash, but dynamics shift,

                    You don't acknowledge that if investors exit en masse, rental supply drops, pushing rents higher in the short term.

                    I'm guessing you assume homes sold become primary residences, but in practice, some just shift to other investors, depending on market conditions.

                    Total physical supply of dwellings doesn’t change just because an investor sells to an owner-occupier.

                    Rent doesn't fall if the buyer just moves in and the overall number of rental properties falls.

                    Property taxes don’t create new homes, and affordability is more than just ownership — rental dynamics matter, too

                    beyond this, i'm out, not worth it - good day sir :)

                    • Protractor on 18/05/2025 - 22:20

                      @Jaspa7: I haven't mentioned rent prices or rentals once.

                      SUPPLY

    • Zoroaster on 14/05/2025 - 21:21

      To answer OP, vacancy tax is the wrong way to go. You need to build as many houses as possible by whatever means necessary, the people that it will hurt will just pass the cost on. You won't notice it directly, but it will just be passed on.

      What you can actually do if you want a tax is to put a tax on block sizes as in, how many dwellings would you expect on the block size and tax them based on that, if they're wasting land. Obviously not applicable to rural areas, only city areas et cetera. Make it a decent size tax and people will size down to their needs and developers will come in and make better use of the land. But good luck doing something that actually helps us.

  • tempco on 14/05/2025 - 21:27
    +4

    For those who keep asking about the why… it doesn't matter - tax will shift incentives so that land is used in a way that's most effective for society. We should be getting rid of "rent-seeking" where possible, where people are benefitting from an increase in the value of a scarce resource without doing anything to improve it.

  • meowbert on 14/05/2025 - 23:46

    Stop immigration then you dont have to worry if houses are empty.

    • smartazz104 on 15/05/2025 - 07:29
      +3

      Exactly, then all the wealthy citizens who already own multiple properties can buy up the ones currently being bought by migrants, and, oopps, back to square one.

      • tenpercent on 15/05/2025 - 07:40
        +1

        The issue is not who is buying up properties. The issue is simply a lack of housing given the number of people in the country. Pausing immigration would allow new dwelling completions to catch up with the population we have.

        Think of it like a hotel that is continually building new rooms. Hotel Australia has been overbooked. There's not enough rooms for all the guests the hotel has let in; some rooms have 10 families sharing, some hallways have guests without rooms living rough. Pausing new bookings will allow the number of available rooms (continually under construction) to catch up with everyone already at the hotel.

        • Crow K on 15/05/2025 - 17:51

          The issue is not who is buying up properties. The issue is simply a lack of housing given the number of people in the country. Pausing immigration would allow new dwelling completions to catch up with the population we have.

          Okay, so what would happen if we paused immigration, allowed Hotel Australia to build more rooms, then the wealthy people (who already had rooms) booked out those new rooms as well but deliberately kept them empty?

          Square one.

          Part of the solution to the problem has to include reducing the incentives to book out rooms you personally don't need.

          • tenpercent on 15/05/2025 - 19:56

            @Crow K:

            then the wealthy people (who already had rooms) booked out those new rooms as well but deliberately kept them empty…
            …Square one

            Your understanding of reality is askew. That's just not happening. There aren't very many empty houses (or empty rooms in the Hotel Australia analogy).

    • baldur on 16/05/2025 - 06:02

      It's never the resson but yeah.

  • tenpercent on 15/05/2025 - 07:35
    +1

    The ABS estimate of unoccupied dwellings in the OP is cooked; they're off by an order of magnitude.

    Using electricity usage to determine whether a dwelling has been occupied recently or not (thankyou Grunntt), which should be more reliable than hoping everyone fills in their questionnaire, and using the total number of all dwellings, then there were only around 141 thousand unoccupied dwellings in 2021 (not over 1 million).

    The number of vacant dwellings that could be used to boost the supply of available housing will be even less. Were some of those dwellings unoccupied because they were on the market to be sold? Were some of them part of deceased estates? Are many of them in remote areas where there is no work? Are some of them derelict and unliveable? Are some of them awaiting knock down ahead of a rebuild? Are some of them unoccupied because the residents are on holidays? I'm sure there are more reasons besides.

    So a nationwide vacancy tax is going to have minimal impact on available housing supply considering there is such a tiny number of vacant dwellings.

    Unfortunately the supply side is slow to react to changing government policy settings (it takes time to go from "I want to build a house" to having a house completed), especially considering the supply of qualified (not merely imported pairs of arms/legs/hands) and materials are a bottleneck.

    Fortunately though the demand side is much more quickly influenced by government policy settings, as was demonstrated in 2020. We know the government has the power to put the breaks on growth in demand for housing which would allow the construction of dwellings and total supply to catch up with the number of people already here. But any government (Labor or LNP) will not pull that lever because there are people out there who will knee jerk yell "racist", even though it doesn't matter at all where the excessive immigration is coming from. They will do everything they can to shut down the conversation. They will neg this comment too.

  • baldur on 15/05/2025 - 08:02
    +4

    I work off my ass hard and buy a home and some lazy people want to seize my own property, because?

    This is the world water is being sold. (profanity) water. Do you realize that?

  • Tiredman on 15/05/2025 - 10:24

    It's not that simple. Sometimes i have to leave a house empty 1-2 years for my development projects while waiting for plans and permits from the highly inefficient councils. Usually the houses are too run down or damaged to be rented out. Instead of taxing empty homes, government needs to cut the bullshit to get developments approved and up and running ASAP to increase the supply and for the love of god, building surveyors need to be under the government. Everyone is busy shafting everyone in this industry and cutting corners everywhere.

    For example, i had a project recently that was delayed for a couple of months because of the drainage lid (that was approved and stamped by the council). They came in for the final inspection and decided they didn't like the lid and told me to change it. I argued i gave them what was approved, they mentioned i could bring it to VCAT and fight them or change it. This was during Christmas period last year. Couldn't get any stock for 2 months plus so the site was left there, all finished, pending a drainage lid. Couldn't sign off, couldn't settle wit the buyers and i had to sleep in there to guard the house. There were many other such bullshit during the build stage. Nitpicking over your plants, your fence etc…, I am looking at you Manningham Council.

    So to build 3 units on a lot, you are looking at 3-4 years in total for the entire process.

  • does it matter on 15/05/2025 - 15:44
    -1

    Stop foreign ownership and most of the housing problems would be dealt with.

  • Protractor on 15/05/2025 - 18:06
    -2

    Fix negative gearing and CGT now. Then next election blame the greens for letting it through the senate.It's their idea.
    Then just cash out AUKUS and spend a portion of the cash on housing ( and local defence, allied to Indo. Bases on PNG.No Yanks allowed. Ban all foreign nuclear anything from parking in Australian ports.
    Add a 'sovereignty tax' to all the gas exported and reserve 20% of all gas for us.Form brand new pacts with Indo,NZ,Canada,UK and NATO. Sign a deal with China for our rare earths, with end usage clauses.)

  • D3HUN on 15/05/2025 - 18:47

    @Goliegosh, hate the disappoint, but I believe the Census results are often misinterpreted (and so did you). When the CENSUS asking about occupancy, basically they are asking about where you spent the night. You might still live at a different address, but if you were elsewhere for that night, that is counted as 'unoccupied'.

    Those homes are not unoccupied. Those were unoccupied dwellings on Census Night.

    This can be anything, but a few examples:
    - people travelling / staying at family, etc
    - fly-in -fly out workers sleeping at work
    - couples living separately, but spending the night at the other's place
    - non occupied for-letting places (that are owned privately)
    - rentals sitting empty while on market
    - homes sitting empty when being sold/on market
    - etc

    I emphasize this, as I believe that the notion of almost 10% of the property stock sitting "idle", just waiting for people to move in is a bit misleading.

    And for those who can afford to have multiple properties without renting them out (short or long term), probably a bit of tax wouldn't make much difference.

  • quick-dry on 15/05/2025 - 21:14
    +1

    IMO this will be tinkering around the edges, most people with an investment property sitting idle will have a relative that would have it as their "residence" if that made more sense financially for the owner.

    Even if there is zero empty houses and we assume it works perfectly, we're not solving anything going forward, just delaying the inevitable for a little while as those fill up. Once those houses are filled, we're back into the current game - where there is way more demand than we have supply

    (I'm going to eb controversial and say people should forget about negative gearing/CGT discount - CGT discount was just to make things easier over the old indexation method. Negative gearing just gives employees access to the same 'rights' as a business owner. It's like any other expense incurred in the course of earning income/making profit).

    Population growth and housing supply are what needs to be tackled, these other little things are emotive distractions IMO.

  • haemolysis on 16/05/2025 - 01:09

    I probably don’t support a vacancy tax “under normal circumstances” but we are not in normal circumstances. We are in a scenario where the government has heavy tax incentives to prop up investment, and surprise-surprise: runaway investment.

    My only concern is that ideas like this come out of the assumption there’s any desire to “do something about it.” That’s just not the case. I honestly think politicians will regret ever coming up with the phrase “housing crisis” pretty soon because they are not treating it as a crisis.

    • D3HUN on 16/05/2025 - 10:11

      "runaway investment" is a bit misguided… Assuming your theory and it is all the investors buying up all the properties, then I'd also think they want a return on the investment? (eg. renting it out, or selling it for profit a while after?)

      If they are renting it our, that becomes available for people to live in. Yet, there are long queues at every rental, regardless of the price. Almost as if there wouldn't be enough supply.

      As long as we don't get more people working in the trades, supply will be the limiting factor.

      • tenpercent on 16/05/2025 - 11:41

        Investors don't necessarily need to rent it out. They can make over 7% p.a. on paper gains with price appreciation alone. Ungeared investors could sit on that for decades and still be happy with the outcome.

        Yet, there are long queues at every rental, regardless of the price. Almost as if there wouldn't be enough supply.

        The long queues are literally the demand. Almost like there's too much demand.

        As long as we keep bringing in +38k net migrants per month every month without any reduction or reprieve, demand will be the driving factor.

        Housing stock won't catch up in the next decade (or possibly ever) to be able to house the 250k homeless in the country growing by +10k per month. Even if the supply side is boosted with more tradies. Demand growth needs to be temporarily slowed so that the supply-demand imbalance can be corrected and then immigration should never be allowed to exceed the housing capacity at any given point in time.

        • D3HUN on 16/05/2025 - 13:06

          @tenpercent

          Can't decide if you are actually agree or disagree. Unmet demand also means that there is a short supply, hey?

          And you are right, curbing the demand could also help, but even if you reduce immigration to 0 today, you would still need to supply literally over 100k new homes, to solve the current situation.

          I think we can both agree that not having enough homes in a country with the least capita/km2 is a funny thing. (well, would be funny if it wouldn't mean crisis)

          7% p.a. gains won't be realised without renting it out if you account for the maintenance costs, council rates, etc… Significant portion of the rental stock is negativiely geared, even with being on rent.

  • KaTst3R on 16/05/2025 - 10:30
    +1

    If I buy an asset, I will use it in any way i deem fit. It is my fking business.

    • jackspratt on 16/05/2025 - 11:02
      -5

      Hell yeh! - keeping driving your car at 100kph around suburban streets.

      It's your right under the constitution, and the Magna Carta, and no-one else's farking business.

      • KaTst3R on 16/05/2025 - 11:30
        +4

        A better argument is that you bought a car and the moment you left your car unused for 2 hours, the government mandates you must make it available for rent as a GoGet or Uber Rental until you use it again next time. Enjoy~!

        • tenpercent on 16/05/2025 - 11:31

          Great idea! I'll propose it at the next caucus

          /s

        • jackspratt on 16/05/2025 - 13:31

          A better argument…..

          It may be your better argument, but it doesn't really help your silly OP.

          • KaTst3R on 16/05/2025 - 14:20
            -1

            @jackspratt: It is my asset and my farking business. I use it any fark way i want. Nothing wrong with that.

            • jackspratt on 16/05/2025 - 22:39

              @KaTst3R:

              I use it any fark way i want.

              Until you can't (despite your hairy-chested statements) - which is what this thread, and my OP, is about.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join