33
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Spoilers: no.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week 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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

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

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
33 points (81.1% liked)

Australia

3429 readers
60 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS