there are at least 3 empty homes in my estate. probably more that I havnt noticed. 4 bedroom homes just sitting doing nothing. Driving up prices for first home owners trying to break into the market. Creating scarcity in the rental market driving up prices for renters. Anyway you slice it thats just wrong. if you want it to sit there empty as the owner thats fine, its your property, but we should be taxing you out the asshole and investing that money in flooding the market with more homes.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'mma differ slightly and say that yes, they should be "allowed" to. But there should be a levy imposed on them if they do choose that. And the levy should be large enough that it vastly outstrips expected capital gains.

[–] Baku@aussie.zone 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, there are some limited but valid reasons to leave a home vacant. As long as it's cheaper to have somebody living in a house than just hoarding as much land as possible, that's probably what people will do

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You would obviously have exceptions for renovations, subject to reasonable proof that renovations are actually taking place (or planning approval is being sought for said renovations). Ditto for make-safe work if the house is deemed unsafe to live in.

I can't really think of any other valid reasons.

As long as it’s cheaper to have somebody living in a house than just hoarding as much land as possible

Not necessarily. Some people just can't be bothered with the hassle of figuring out renting it out. I've heard this is especially common with Chinese buyers since housing in China is viewed even more as an asset than it is here.

If someone buys it as an asset just meant to appreciate in value, the dividends from renting it out may be viewed as less important.

It also prevents the use of a house as a rarely-used holiday home. If someone spends a handful of weeks per year in a house, that is pretty much just as wasteful as leaving it empty full-time, as far as the housing market is concerned. Maybe that levy could be decreased proportional to how much time it actually is being used.

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I can't really think of any other valid reasons.

My place is vacant 100km away while I look after my bed-ridden demented Mum. Unpaid.

My "vacancy tax" is the $1000 of stuff stolen by thieves who broke in.

[–] Baku@aussie.zone -3 points 4 months ago

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 months ago

Nah, private propery is a silly concept, especially when it's essential resources.

We were all shocked and appalled at people hording masks, sanitiser, TP, food etc not so long ago. Sitting on TP you aren't using while someone else goes without is absolutely trivial compared to a house/land.

Using a thing is part of what grants you rights to it. People deserve a chance to explain why something is unused, and if it is temporary they shouldn't lose rights (e.g. medium term contract away from home, pending works, social obligations etc) but multiple homes and one vacant? Sitting on something to try make cash? Nah not yours anymore.

[–] ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If it's vacant then it's not their home, it's just unused housing.

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago

I am living in a small room in Sydney caring for my bed-ridden demented Mum and rarely spend time in my house 100km away. Please don't punish me for it.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I think the government should give fair warning. Say if it's still vacant in 6 months, we're acquiring it and selling it to someone who will make use of it.

[–] FireWire400@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Either that, or the owner should be forced to rent it out at a reasonable price

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Experimental Bureau of Statistics data compiled from federal government administrative records and electricity usage estimates that about 1.3 per cent of Australian homes were empty in mid-2021 — that's up to 140,000 vacant dwellings.

That data may have been skewed by some people exiting city centres during COVID, but it's clear that tens of thousands of homes around the country are empty, with many of them vacant so long they're now derelict.

One option, favoured by many economists, to rebalance that financial equation and incentivise owners to put vacant properties back into use is land tax.

"Contrary to popular belief, there actually is no constitutional protection for private property at state level in Australia," explains Professor Sherry.

Ultimately, it owns all the land as the "Crown", and private ownership is nothing more than a legislatively protected right of exclusive occupation and possession … again within legal boundaries set by the state.

"In liberal democratic states, we put a very high value on personal freedom and autonomy, which is why we generally can do as we please in our own homes," Professor Sherry argues.

The original article contains 1,096 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] fart_pickle@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

If someone owns a house/land and pays all the taxes, fees, etc. it's no ones business if the place is empty or unused. If you want to fix the housing issue prevent non-citizens from buying properties (like investment companies), make sure short-term rentals and properly regulated and grow a pair to introduce more strict regulations.