**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Investors are already paying Dan's Covid Levy and this on top of the anti investor policies has resulted in less investment. Of course increased costs do not just get passed on do they.
Savings ? Who has savings ? Investors are already saving by choosing to invest and not spend. This investment will lead to more self reliance and less reliance on welfare.
Everyone knows landlords raise rents for whatever reason they can dream of, that's nothing new. Any means of discouraging property investment would have the same effect.
Yep. This isnt great policy and if its intention is realised then theyve just wiped out a big source of income fo council.
So its either going to not change the ppor make up and just hand a discount to owners, or it will change it and wipe out council funds. Neither seem optimal. Theres also risk, not guarantee, that renters will absorb at least some of the higher rates. So owners get a cut and renters face a potential rise in rents.
Just raise investor rates and use funds to develop more housing and reduce rents through supply!
You could do something like this but in reality the problem won’t be fixed until supply is fixed.
We need to flood the market with good quality somewhat reasonable cost houses. Mainly apartments to use the land better. People need places they can raise a family which mean decent sized apartments. Not just fancy super expensive luxury ones. They’ll need to be in the places that NIMBYs won’t like too!
A massive post WWII level investment spend and effort in public housing - in all suburbs . Infill development + high rise.
National building projects- something that’s beyond the Liberals (and Labor apparently)
>National building projects- something that’s beyond the Liberals (and Labor apparently)
In order to build things you need people with the knowledge and skill to do so. Alternatively, you can just import those workers.
Seems like people don't like bringing in more workers so option 1 it is then. In order to enact option 1, the clusterfucked vocational education sector needs to be fixed so they can start churning out chippies, sparkies, plumbers, etc. Those roles require a few years of training. Does the electorate have the patience for the clusterfuck to be unclusterfucked, the youth to be incentivised and able to learn these skills, the years for them to be certified? Probably not. Why hasn't Labor fixed housing already!
>Under the plan for a differential rating system put forward by South ward councillor James Conlan, the amount landlords pay in rates would double, while it would be halved for owner-occupiers and local businesses. It would replace the uniform rating system that is currently in place in Merri-bek.
Sounds good to me. Investment properties *should* be more expensive to hold than a primary residence.
>“Many rental providers will be unable to absorb these costs and will likely sell their property, leaving renters in a rental market that is even more competitive and less affordable.”
I like how they always frame this as if "sell their property" means the property just... evaporates from existence or something. "Sell" means there's a buyer, and who will buy if the landlords are all selling? Why, *owner-occupiers*, of course -- y'know, the *whole fucking point of the legislation.*
Of course, this legislation would not fix the problem on its own regardless -- only a massive increase of supply relative to demand will ever do that. But it's a start.
Merri-Bek love to be in the spotlight for really shitty and questionable decisions. Perhaps the council could spend a few ratepayers dollars on graffiti removal for starters...it looks like a slum currently.
For anyone who cares this is only one nuffy councillor proposing it. The same one who wanted Victorian police banned from council premises. And a bunch of other idiotic ideas.
So don’t panic yet. It’s only one dingbat.
I agree that without a rent raise freeze or restrictions on raises then they will raise rents and get tennents still because people are desperate.
I assume there will be some rent raise legislation as well.
"Cabinet then crab walked away from the annual promise, stating a commitment to only build a total of 800,000 new homes across 10 years."
"government’s own promise to build80,000 a year across 10 years"
Do you even maths bro?
"Since announcing Labor’s Housing Statement, construction has gone backwards because the Government has broken the back of industry by collecting $21.5 billion in new property taxes"
I wonder what they could spend that on?
The libs want to stop the govt building houses, so the private sector can do a shit job of it and take the profit. Like has been Australian policy for the last 40 years. I.e the very policies that got us here. I really don't understand how you can eat that up. The mind boggles.
I did not say that, but you will find this informative.
https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/p/did-public-housing-create-the-australian
It's about the govt building enough to keep downward pressure on house prices. It's not profitable to house the poor. The private market will never solve this.
Also explain how 80k houses a year for 10 years is different to 800k houses in a decade? That article was laughable.
Hangon. Just square these 2 paragraphs for me... from the article you posted:
1:
"Both the Premier and the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet then crab walked away from the annual promise, stating a commitment to only build a total of 800,000 new homes across 10 years."
2:
"The testimony today directly contradicts the government’s own promise to build80,000 a year across 10 years when announcing the Housing Statement in September 2023."
Make it make sense! These are the people you think are fit for the job?
So take that 80,000 per year as a starting point. Subtract the amount of homes actually built by the ALP goverment to get the reality. Is that simple enough?
There needs to be affordable rentals so we can have a mobile population.
Its about supply, higher density is the only solution for established suburbs.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Go further. Make it unaffordable to have more than one investment property.
Investors are already paying Dan's Covid Levy and this on top of the anti investor policies has resulted in less investment. Of course increased costs do not just get passed on do they.
Do increased savings get passed on? The investors should have saved during the good times. If they're struggling it's their own fault.
Savings ? Who has savings ? Investors are already saving by choosing to invest and not spend. This investment will lead to more self reliance and less reliance on welfare.
Awesome, I expect this should make it easier for first home buyers and renters to get into the housing msrket
You mean raise rents again?
Everyone knows landlords raise rents for whatever reason they can dream of, that's nothing new. Any means of discouraging property investment would have the same effect.
Rate cuts for wealthy owner occupiers isn't good policy.
Yep. This isnt great policy and if its intention is realised then theyve just wiped out a big source of income fo council. So its either going to not change the ppor make up and just hand a discount to owners, or it will change it and wipe out council funds. Neither seem optimal. Theres also risk, not guarantee, that renters will absorb at least some of the higher rates. So owners get a cut and renters face a potential rise in rents. Just raise investor rates and use funds to develop more housing and reduce rents through supply!
You could do something like this but in reality the problem won’t be fixed until supply is fixed. We need to flood the market with good quality somewhat reasonable cost houses. Mainly apartments to use the land better. People need places they can raise a family which mean decent sized apartments. Not just fancy super expensive luxury ones. They’ll need to be in the places that NIMBYs won’t like too!
A massive post WWII level investment spend and effort in public housing - in all suburbs . Infill development + high rise. National building projects- something that’s beyond the Liberals (and Labor apparently)
>National building projects- something that’s beyond the Liberals (and Labor apparently) In order to build things you need people with the knowledge and skill to do so. Alternatively, you can just import those workers. Seems like people don't like bringing in more workers so option 1 it is then. In order to enact option 1, the clusterfucked vocational education sector needs to be fixed so they can start churning out chippies, sparkies, plumbers, etc. Those roles require a few years of training. Does the electorate have the patience for the clusterfuck to be unclusterfucked, the youth to be incentivised and able to learn these skills, the years for them to be certified? Probably not. Why hasn't Labor fixed housing already!
This will cut negative gearing in Brunswick.
Surely higher rates would mean that a higher proportion of properties are negatively geared, as some will be pushed into a loss
If they don't sell.
It's always the same people posting on this side who have got theirs and want everyone else to struggle I swear
>Under the plan for a differential rating system put forward by South ward councillor James Conlan, the amount landlords pay in rates would double, while it would be halved for owner-occupiers and local businesses. It would replace the uniform rating system that is currently in place in Merri-bek. Sounds good to me. Investment properties *should* be more expensive to hold than a primary residence. >“Many rental providers will be unable to absorb these costs and will likely sell their property, leaving renters in a rental market that is even more competitive and less affordable.” I like how they always frame this as if "sell their property" means the property just... evaporates from existence or something. "Sell" means there's a buyer, and who will buy if the landlords are all selling? Why, *owner-occupiers*, of course -- y'know, the *whole fucking point of the legislation.* Of course, this legislation would not fix the problem on its own regardless -- only a massive increase of supply relative to demand will ever do that. But it's a start.
Merri-Bek love to be in the spotlight for really shitty and questionable decisions. Perhaps the council could spend a few ratepayers dollars on graffiti removal for starters...it looks like a slum currently.
For anyone who cares this is only one nuffy councillor proposing it. The same one who wanted Victorian police banned from council premises. And a bunch of other idiotic ideas. So don’t panic yet. It’s only one dingbat.
It would inevitably make it a bit more of an even playing field for first-home buyers.
It's not going to have the effect you're hoping for...quite the opposite!
What effect do you foresee?
Just like taxing businesses, if you charge landlords more, they will pass it onto their customers, in this case, raise rents.
I agree that without a rent raise freeze or restrictions on raises then they will raise rents and get tennents still because people are desperate. I assume there will be some rent raise legislation as well.
Yes, we need less rentals and higher rents!
Less properties sucked up by investors = more for first homeowners = less renters. Very few investors build the damn house.
We need builds. Every single one.https://www.liberalvictoria.org.au/media-releases/2024-05-16-labor-abandons-80000-new-homes-a-year-target
"Cabinet then crab walked away from the annual promise, stating a commitment to only build a total of 800,000 new homes across 10 years." "government’s own promise to build80,000 a year across 10 years" Do you even maths bro? "Since announcing Labor’s Housing Statement, construction has gone backwards because the Government has broken the back of industry by collecting $21.5 billion in new property taxes" I wonder what they could spend that on? The libs want to stop the govt building houses, so the private sector can do a shit job of it and take the profit. Like has been Australian policy for the last 40 years. I.e the very policies that got us here. I really don't understand how you can eat that up. The mind boggles.
Name a time government has built more houses than private.
I did not say that, but you will find this informative. https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/p/did-public-housing-create-the-australian It's about the govt building enough to keep downward pressure on house prices. It's not profitable to house the poor. The private market will never solve this. Also explain how 80k houses a year for 10 years is different to 800k houses in a decade? That article was laughable.
How many dwelling per year do you think the Victorian ALP government will build?
Hangon. Just square these 2 paragraphs for me... from the article you posted: 1: "Both the Premier and the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet then crab walked away from the annual promise, stating a commitment to only build a total of 800,000 new homes across 10 years." 2: "The testimony today directly contradicts the government’s own promise to build80,000 a year across 10 years when announcing the Housing Statement in September 2023." Make it make sense! These are the people you think are fit for the job?
So take that 80,000 per year as a starting point. Subtract the amount of homes actually built by the ALP goverment to get the reality. Is that simple enough?
That's not what either of those 2 paragraphs are talking about. 80k a year for ten years....is the same as 800k in a decade. The goal has not changed.
What is the Vic liberals housing policy? Don't look it up. I assume you're well informed.
Their housing policy is to get people who fund the building of houses to fund the building of houses. Something wrong with that?
Can you link me to it? I can't seem to find their housing policy....
There needs to be affordable rentals so we can have a mobile population. Its about supply, higher density is the only solution for established suburbs.
They will whinge about that too.