this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

3608 readers
135 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 @Tau@aussie.zone 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: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
7
Could a tax against empty homes help end Australia's housing crisis? (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 1 year ago by TassieTosser@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

My first instinct is "yes" but then I thought about it and I think it's just going to exacerbate the short-stay problem unless combined with other measures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RustyRaven@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why does being a house they live in mean it is not also an asset? If someone prefers to rent and save up more money towards their retirement instead of buying a house why should they be penalised? If someone wants to buy an inner city appartment that is worth less and have more money put aside to pay the body corporate fees why should they get less pension than if they have a freestanding house? If someone wants to sell their house, put that money aside while they travel in a van around Australia for a few years and then buy something suitable when it is time to settle down again, why should they lose their pension compared to someone who leaves the house mostly empty while they travel so it doesn't count as an asset?

We definitely should have some consideration for the fact that this is someone's house and they shouldn't lose it because of unrealised capital gains, but we also shouldn't be creating a two-tier system which also ties people in to keeping a house which may not be suitable for them any more.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the value is not immediately and readily accessible without uprooting their entire life.

Tax the shit outta the sale, sure but basically penalising someone for living in their own house opens up a lot of very bad doors.

[–] RustyRaven@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

That's exacty what I'm arguing. A land tax which is able to be put off until the sale where people have low incomes. That would not penalise anyone, it just means some of the windfall gains from rising property prices go towards paying taxes rather than being a freebie to be passed on to the next generation as inheretance.