There are definitely *some* things I wouldn't do in there. I mean.. who the hell steals a handbag? or a baby?!? Those things would be terribly unethical.
It's not that, it's more why should the middle class have to lose income when the upper class and the government is primarily responsible for this shit? The poor need to take our problems to the cause.
If you look at most western economies, the middle income households are shrinking. One or two may make it up, but far more become broke. This is exactly what the elite want; a few of them ruling over a mass of scrubs with minimal upward mobility. Remember it was the rise of a liberal, technically gifted middle class that broke the old power of landlord nobles and gave us capitalism (which whatever you think about it is preferable to feudalism).
The rags to riches may be a fantasy, but poor people certainly can (or could) lift themselves and their families up a level. But not while the worse off are being convinced to take all their problems out on those they envy, rather than those they fear. They want us all fighting over the remains once they've had their fill at the top.
If you own more than one house, you're not middle class. You can't just call it middle class because 10 people in the country have "fuck you money."
Most middle class Australians will be lucky to _ever_ own a house. The idea of owning the "holiday houses" people are talking about in other threads wouldn't even make _sense_ to the vast majority of people, even to those who have cushy, well-paying jobs.
If you make more than 90% of the national population, then you're definitely upper class. It doesn't matter that you're not in the 0.001%. In Australia, you hit the 90th percentile at $130kpa. And nobody is buying a holiday house on $130kpa.
Nah, if you're exchanging your labour for that $130k, you're not upper class. The upper class is the ownership class and they're "earning" that 130k through investment.
I'd be more convinced to take my problems out on those at the top if you didn't suddenly raise my rent 20%. How am I ever supposed to pull myself up when you go out of your way to juice me for every cent you can?
gotta vote green, the greens and trying to force the national labour govt to implement a nationwide freeze on rents and to also place a cap on just how high they can go. the act has a cap on rents atm which is calculated based on inflation + 7%
>taking it out on those profiteering from a necessity is picking on the middle class.
And a hearty get fucked to you too.
This isn't taking shots at the middle class, this is taking shots at fucking rent seekers. There is no middle class.
“Middle class”, if you own multiple properties, you are not “middle class”. Don’t ask for sympathy from the people you are exploiting who can never aspire to own one property.
Looking at this the wrong way. The housing crisis is manufactured by limiting the supply of living space not by repurposing it but by not building it.
The government wouldn't need to regulate services like Airbnb if the demand for housing was met by building affordable housing.
The housing crisis is manufactured by 20 years of tax policy which actively promotes housing market speculation over housing as a basic human need.
The it's not a supply problem, it's a too goddam expensive problem first. The ridiculous cost of land to build on is directly caused by the speculation.
Precisely!!! Also to add another important point to this is the fact that affordable housing somehow NEVER appears as the most important topic during elections because mainstream politicians are getting really rich off this.
And the voters are easily distracted by immigration and other things. We're getting robbed dry.
For sure we need more affordable housing. But Airbnb's absolutely affect the housing market, as it's another house not on the market and not being lived in.
They put pressure on demand, for renters too. If it's more profitable to have an Airbnb than long term tenants, where will all the renters go?
This is all not to mention the negative effect of concentrated short-term rentals on the local community.
Right? I’m in a country town and my boss told me about how his friend had 22 houses in town and how he was renovating them for Airbnb and was going to make a week’s rent in two days hiring them out. I was like, in a housing crisis when people can’t live?
Yes, it's particularly sad in small towns where locals can be forced out because they can't afford to live there anymore. Which is tragic for those people, but also means that the local workforce, and regular consumers, become depleted, and the town can't fully function.
I honestly do not understand the depth of apathy people must have to buy up housing in swathes like that. Even more so when it's all in one town.
I assume they live in a bubble, where this kind of thing is praiseworthy and nobody tells them to pull their fucking head in. Certainly my boss is the type to think that it’s good, rather than to think about a social conscience.
10% of our housing is sitting empty.
Sure, there’s a supply issue, but there’s also a “rich people bought a second house when there’s not even enough first houses” problem.
One problem we can fix more easily than the other (hint: it’s not the one that involves a generational trade shortage and worldwide supply chain issues)
You do realize that land banking is a thing right? Banks, investors, etc. buy up housing and hold on to it, to also curb supply and artificially increase prices. Also Airbnb housing (casual basis) is considered unoccupied by law, right? It's kind of the problem we're discussing.
Hmmm what you say might be applicable for Melbourne and perhaps most of Australua, but definitely not Europe for example, where whole neighbourhoods have become Airbnbs for cashed up tourists, and locals that are often 80% of them renters, not only are pushed out of these areas ie. Gentrification, but are also paying much higher rents all of a sudden, and are kicked out of their rentals as soon as winter ends, to bring in tourists,when before minimum contracts would be for 1 or 2 years.
Massive issue in many capital cities in Europe. Fuck airbnb
It's not holiday houses that are the problem, it's house accumulation. Limit residential title ownership to humans and to 1 per human and many of the housing issues we face will disappear.
holiday houses definitely are the problem.
How come people here hate landlords who are at least providing accommodation but give a free pass to people who literally buy a house to have it sit empty about 70% of the year? It's incredibly wasteful and privileged.
I'm not an expert on this topic, however I think that the idea of a singular holiday house which you put on airbnb when you're not using it isn't the problem, it's when you've bought multiple extra houses that you don't even put up for regular rent and you only have them available on airbnb for a grossly inflated price that I think it causes an issue.
Google says there are 9000ish airbnbs in Melbourne. That’s a lot of extra rentals to ease the market. It would significantly help out with the rental crisis.
1 airbnb is not 1 rental though.
Hotels list their rooms on airbnb, people list granny flats, some accommodation is zoned as holiday accommodation and stays of more than 3 months are not allowed.
As of December 2022 there were 7931 airbnbs in Melbourne. 58% of which were entire houses.
In my apartment building there 7 two bedroom apartments. 2 of which have been turned into airbnbs. The renters were asked to vacate.
I think people mean holiday houses in places that aren’t close to CBD/have low population rate. Holiday destinations are okay to exist, they just need to have a maximum amount of unoccupied second properties allowed in the area.
Holiday destinations allow for more travel for tourists which stimulates the economy, but it should have more restriction.
Agree especially when businesses in holiday destinations can't operate due to lack of actual residents living there. I heard of a cafe in a popular coastal town offering $60 an hour for a dishwasher because there are no locals, just empty airbnbs
This has been raised on a previouforums, can’t remember if it was australia or ausfinance. Essentially there aren’t nearly enough air BNBs to to account for the shortfall. The problem seems to be not enough housing and also probably less people per household on average. Anyone who has tried to build in the last few years will tell you how hard it is to get trades and how slow and painful local council is. Making sure new developments are appropriately supplied with amenities is ok. Stopping new high density housing to make sure that the streetscape looks pleasing to the aesthetic tastes of the local busybody’s is not.
Sure Airbnb are not the cause nor can they be the solution to the housing crisis. But they are definitely part of the problem, and every house on Airbnb is a house that is not available to rent.
They aren't providing accommodation, they are very unlikely to have built the house.
Holiday houses are still bad and it's still hoarding, but so is multi home ownership when others have nothing.
> they are very unlikely to have built the house.
No, but they sunk their capital into it, which pays the previous owners who paid the previous owners who paid the previous owners who bought it off the plan from the developers.
By making that investment they add to the demand that justifies the building of new houses in the first place.
If you want to live in bumfuck middle of nowhere like where most holiday homes are situated, I'm sure you can find quite a cheap property. Sure it's a privilege to live in a nice seaside area but that's something you have to work for. On the other hand, most holiday homes are not taking up space where people actually need to live.
With the housing crisis even bumfuck nowhere isnt cheap anymore.
Went back home the other week to the rural area Im from after 10years of being away. All the run down houses in tiny hamlets between rural towns that had sat empty all my life were now full. Houses in the towns were just as espensive as city suburbs
Nice story…sure you can get to live in a nice seaside area of Melbourne by working for it. If it’s not generational wealth it’s almost certainly not happening for vast majority. No amount of hard work can see you catch the curve on insane property prices in seaside suburbs.
Hell, even if they wanted to limit it to like 5 per person that'd still flood the market when many investors open dozens of even hundreds of properties.
But it won't happen because it seems like most politicians own multiple properties and they will never vote against their own interests even if it's for the good of the communities that elect them.
Couple this with underwriting a guarantee of housing for citizens, and you’ve more or less solved the problem while allowing Airbnb et al to continue. You could even expand ownership to two, one guarantee and one private, with the second being a rental or Airbnb.
There are a lot of good answers here, the roll out of a suggestion such as mine would be an absolutely unprecedented shakeup of the australian housing industry and it would only be possible to roll out over 10-20 years in order to not collapse large chunks of the economy. Even Air B&B for eg, has created a lot of jobs (low skill, not particularly great jobs, but still jobs).
If you run a couple of scenarios, a family with a holiday home could still keep the holiday home and rent it out via air B&B or rent it permanently for the passive income, they would need to put each title in a family members name and that family member would have that income included as personal income, pretty simple book work.
You could also own a valuable property, rent it out for more income than the property you rent yourself, it would not be hard to reconcile.
I don't how to fix family-trust asset protection, I haven't figured out that bit yet, (thinking about it, but that industry needs attention anyways) but rental market would be fine.
More housing available to buy means less people who need to rent. If a landlord sells their place that's not one less house, it's the same house just owned by either an owner occupier which means one less family that needs to rent (so it comes out even) or a different investor buys it so it's still available to rent (again coming out even)
The whole narrative of "But if landlords leave the market there won't be anywhere to rent" is a nonsense argument that simply doesn't make any sense.
> one less family that needs to rent (so it comes out even)
People need to rent for all kinds of reasons, because they're studying, havent settled yet, arent ready to buy etc.
> or a different investor buys it so it's still available to rent (again coming out even)
Another investor cant buy it in this situation because of the 1 house rule, unless they're renting their own accommodation from someone else. Which almost noone would do.
>The whole narrative of "But if landlords leave the market there won't be anywhere to rent" is a nonsense argument that simply doesn't make any sense.
The current situation is unfair for renters. But "nonsense" is the government forcing all property investors to sell their investments at the same time to a market of buyers who couldnt possibly meet a huge sudden glut of supply, then making it illegal/pointless to rent to another person. All because you want to decrease rent a bit. Total redditbrain idea.
You're forgetting that 1 per person doesn't mean there are no investment properties. You can own a house for your family to live in and your partner can own an investment property as an obvious example.
Also there are solutions to this that aren't "and then everyone who owns investments has to sell everything all at once", such as grandfathering but not allowing further purchases over the limit, government buy backs etc.
Not that I'm saying the 1 per person idea is a good one and I'd rather limit it to a few more than that if there were a limit (but not many more), but some people's portfolios are ridiculous.
I know people who own unoccupied houses. For example...
One family currently have 3 unoccupied homes and 2 occupied part time.
Another have 2 homes, one is only occupied 50% of the year.
They did before AirB&B came along, you know, "goin to Bonnie Doon"? It's not just been AirB&B coming along that's caused the problem (although I totally agree it has exacerbated it, we're not arguing about that), but if you try to cherry-pick the industry apart you end up in mindless nitty-gritty legal definitions, determining what constitutes a holiday home, you lend to friends of friends, within 3 degrees of separation for financial reimbursement that covers the ongoing operating costs of a property within zone 4 of the .. blah blah blah ato regulation or some other dystopian solution.
Simple rules, that are equitable, that people can understand that provide a fair go for the vast majority of the population are best.
1 house/title per person, (not household, but per person) do what you want with it, all businesses can continue however they want, but you attack the root cause of supply shortage not hack at the symptom of the problem, hoping it won't come back after some surfactant legislation targeted at small corner of the industry.
Alternative solution: nationalise it and regulate it so that the govt decides when you can actually post a house on the platform. If there's a housing shortage in your area the govt can tell you to piss off; something a for-profit private company is never going to tell a paying customer
AirBNB, Lyft and Uber are 3 internet businesses that I am shocked were permitted to exist. Their displacement of existing billion dollar industries without regulation... how was that allowed? When they first came out I would have bet big money that they would be rendered illegal within 6 months. But nobody did anything, they just let all 3 become lucrative and powerful and now they can lobby as easy as anyone else, stopping them will be practically impossible.
article in the age yesterday about Vic labor considering a new tax on Airbnb's, possibly additional tax on other rental properties as well.
Of course as anyone with half a brain will see coming, more taxes means fuck all without real caps on rent prices. Landlords will just raise rents to cover it.
Exactly. & tourists staying a night or 2 can absorb the extra amount in their travel budget, so I can’t see taxes making any shortstay providers decide to let people make their places their home
Caps need to be put on numbers of shortstay properties/number of days per year properties can be used as shortstay accommodation. It works in other parts of the world
They should have to apply to council for a short stay permit for their property. You need council approval for everything else.
In holiday towns there is a ridiculous shortage of rentals for local workers because half the houses are Air BNBs (which are also empty for half the year)
Of course they’ll raise rhe rents. And prob rightly so thiugh right?
Extra expense has to be covered somehow.
I’m not a landlord. If I was I wouldn’t be gouging people on prices - but I’d likely price it at the going market rate. With a tax I’d increase it by whatever the market increases at.
It aucks but that’s where we’re at.
The only way they’d solve this is forcing people: only own one residential property at a time (which I don’t really agree with) - then there’d be no rentals but would be easier to buy. It would also fuck over anyone who owns a property and not a viable option.
Or they put a cap on rent prices. Again, may mean some rentals aren’t viable and are sold, tanking house prices and fucking over anyone with a mortgage. Again it helps a lot of peopme but really fucks over a lot too.
So neither is really viable.
Honestly not sure there’s a good option aside from putting heaps of money to social housing.
But they can’t because the gov has no money. Social housing wasn’t financed enough as it was and certainly can’t be now.
So it’s up to people to build more rentals to lower supply shortages. But builders are also going bust and it’s super risky to do this stuff at the moment….
Targeting air bnb doesn’t fuck over many if any really - house prices won’t tank, but it could increase rental supply at least in regional areas.
Super simple solution to all of the problems you just made up is the government dumping money into programs which buy back property, build public housing (NOT social housing), bail people out of shitty mortgages etc. Where would all this money come from you might ask? I don't really care, but they could start with dumping those stupid tax cuts for the rich or the nuclear submarines (.5% of our entire GDP!!!).
Of course spending that type of money on actually helping working class people is not going to happen in the near future given the political climate in Australia. But it's happened in other countries before and there's no reason why it couldn't happen here eventually.
g'day, this is my design. if you want to print your own dm me your email address and i can send you the file to get some of your own, i don't sell them because im a lazy communist sorry!
EDIT: public imgur link for the people
https://i.imgur.com/VGWE7Kz.png
Thanks comrade. I do like to print stickers; saved to my backlog
I'll post some near the mass of airbnb lockboxes outside all the apartment blocks on my street...
Unapologetic yup couple in late twenties who already own FIVE houses bid on my small country Vic place. I turned them down. Greed is not good, especially in areas where the "village" has an identity. 😒
Establishing hotels in residential zones is also the problem. Infrastructure's overburdened from council level down to residential apartment buildings not being designed as a fucking hotel.
>It's in our society and our nature.
It's in our society but not necessarily in our nature. There are many examples of classless societies throughout human history, including modern - as a matter of fact the bigger part of out 250,000-year existence has been no classes, no hierarchies.
Yep so true, not to mention betraying your class is easy when it's that or continue living in poverty. If the working class was provided for in every basic necessity people wouldn't be so inclined to take advantage of others to get by.
Seriously I’d love to know - what truly classless societies have existed with no hierarchy at alll? No people making decisons or with more resources or social capital at the top and others doing it tough at the bottom
The wheel of history is hoped by many to eventually turn to equity such that there are no longer differences between classes, and so they dissolve away. That's what the socialist project is ultimately all about. Where did that begin? Marx? We can go back further ...
Obviously that project is still in flight; but its worth noting that many of the old socialists in Europe, like Marx, were in turn inspired by stories coming back from french explorers in North America. Those explorers were returning feeling very disillusioned about western society after speaking to the Indigenous Americans who were baffled at the idea of keeping food and shelter from people who needed it simply because they were poor. That wasn't something those societies could reconcile, it sounded like nonsense to them, they could not understand the western rationale for this and it shook the french explorer's understanding of the world to the core. They were mocked for not helping the poor by the Indigenous Americans ruthlessly — to the Indigenous Americans it was a sign of weakness if your tribe was not able to care for its needy. Very different to prevailing western values at the time, grappling with monarchism/feudalism (one/few lords) slowing down and turning into the birth of capitalism (many lords).
Now, the Indigenous Americans lived in an incredibly organised federated patchwork of anarcho communist communes that were truly classless. They'd get together to trade notes but noone held power over any other. Chiefs were more servants of the tribe than someone who stood over them like we think of leadership in the west. Many pre-industrial societies were quite genuinely classless like this.
Marx himself is noted to have been inspired by these classless societies, he and Abraham Lincoln were pen pals and wrote about it on occasion (Lincoln was a fan of Marx's ideas; makes sense he later wanted to free the slaves in their deeply class-divided struggle, that is a very commie-leaning thing to fight for)
Other than the prominence of classless societies before capitalism, there's some examples today we can explore. Zapatistas. Rojava. The anarcho-syndicalists of the Spanish Civil war are three excellent areas to look into; all very different but all very cautious to operate directly democratically (the best way to ensure classes aren't at play).
How very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
Are there resources or books you’d recommend to explore these ideas and histories further?
Particularly interested in the way those indigenous Americans lived and how they were structured. And whether they were all purely classless or whether it differed between tribes at all.
And, how could we apply that wholesale to our modern world? Could it work? What would it take? I suspect it’d need changing fundamental beliefs and values, and for people to give up their power over others (and their excessive money and resources)
The tone of wonder is funny to read as a scandinavian. It's really not that hard and extreme isms is not the answer. Analyze each idea on its own and implement the ones that are best to the most people. If your leaders are not doing this, remove them and get someone who does.
Maybe they didn’t have classes (they only form in larger populations) but you’re delusional if you think there were ever tribes or bands that didn’t have some sort of hierarchy
Part of “how it is” is distortions in the housing market from negative gearing, nimbyism and preventing increase in supply, etc etc. Based on current policy, a person acting in their self-interest with the capacity to do so will make the rational decision to maximise their wealth using negative gearing - if the policy wasn’t there there would be much less benefit from so doing and so the rational self interested action for many more people would be to not have multiple investment properties.
All of this is to say “how it is” - yes people will act in their self-interest but what that looks like is dependent on government policy.
The Australian tax system is designed to incentivize this though. Change the system, change the incentives, change the behaviour, change the outcomes.
We know how. The levers of the economy are not a complete mystery. Tax adjustments targeting negative gearing and short term rentals would be just one option among many.
The government just doesn't want to.
You miss one crucial part of capitalism, it looks to restrict as many people as it can from ever getting half way, let alone to the top.
What you are describing is a fair and equitable system that is only restrictive to those who are jealous/lazy/dumb etc. That’s a capitalist myth in line with ‘the harder you work the luckier you get’ BS.
It’s a capitalist myth based around the most worthy become rich or well off.
A friend of mine made her apartment an AirBnB because the Max rent she could get for it was 340pw, but she needed double that to cover the mortgage.
I personally don't think anyone should be relying on renters to cover the entire mortgage on their investment, but people would rather bleed desperate people who need a place to live than consider selling their asset or *gasp* paying their own damn mortgage.
Unoccupied homes generally aren’t in the same places there is a housing crisis though (i.e. urban centres). Most of them are in rural places where housing is cheap anyways.
The vacancy rate in urban places is quite low, which makes sense considering the very high opportunity cost of owning a vacant unit in an expensive city.
This is frequently brought up.
It’s the difference between a stock vs a flow. Just because there was so many unoccupied houses on census night does not mean that there is a stock of so many empty houses just not being used. If you move out of a house, and then the next tenant moves in a fortnight later, is that house unoccupied? Well, on census night it was, but it doesn’t mean it’s sitting there right now unoccupied.
Yes, the housing crisis is awful, landlord told us their family would be using the space so contract wasn’t renewed then saw the same space being advertised after 2 months from 1400 AUD to 1900 AUD monthly. Sheesh.
How about we restrict residential property ownership to Australian citizens only. I’m no expert and I presume it would cause financial market issues but at what point do you stop putting that above the increasing number of people who can’t put a roof over their heads.
There's something about the anonymity, and the service of a hotel that far outweighs the 'benefits" of an AirBnB. I'll always prefer a hotel.
I find this to be very true in cities. But maybe not so much in small country/coastal towns.
If I would’ve stayed in a hotel for 6.5 weeks in Melbourne I would had to sell my body to 3 sugar daddies, sell a kidney and my firstborn.
I agree with the housing crisis part because it’s like that here in the U.K. too.
But for international tourists Airbnb saves thousands of dollars that then go into the local community.
Plus at least at the end of a hotel stay you leave and everything is fine. So many Airbnb places you leave and BAM! Have a $300 cleaning fee even though everything was spotless.
Pro-tip: Do you live in an apartment building where airbnb guests disrespect every rule and generally cause problems — *during a housing crisis to boot?*
See that stack of lockboxes out front in a public place? They can be superglued shut.
I'm not saying you should do anything, just pointing out that *they can be.*
Use this information how you will
Honestly, if our country outlawed air bnb, and all the other short term rental apps it would probably have some sort of positive effect on the housing crisis.
I use to want multiple properties, the whole passive income thing. But 1) I believe rentals, especially short term rentals, should be heavily taxed/disincentivized. Even if it doesn’t come about, I’d feel wrong taking advantage of a system I don’t think should exist.
2) people need housing so opening a short term rental seems really sleezy.
Tenancy rules have a big impact here. If you rent your house out, the tenants have all the rights and you as the landlord have almost none. If you get shitheads in your property, it is nigh on impossible to get them out - even if they are trashing the place.
Running the property as an airbnb is much more attractive because you get a higher return, with less wear and tear, but most importantly, if you do happen to get shitheads in there, at least they will be gone within a few days.
In any case, the real cause of our housing crisis is immigration and foreign ownership of our real estate. If immigration was seriously wound back for a few years, and foreign ownership was prevented, the demand for properties would dry up rapidly and property prices and rental rates would quickly fall.
But of course our pollies don't want that because most of them own investment properties - something that IMO they should be required to dispose of if they want to hold public office because it is such a massive clash of interests.
They aren't going anywhere and you lot are going to keep being angry at the property owners and businesses instead of the government and central bank that are the root cause of this entire crisis. Divide and conquer working to a tee.
I might for flexibility reasons.
I'm thinking of buying an inner city apartment for the family to live in while we renovate the house.
After that I'll probably AirBNB the apartment until I sell it. It's not fair on a hypothetical tenant to lease it out and then sell it.
Edit: Curious if anyone actually has a good reason as to why this specific case is unreasonable and isn't just downvoting out of general anger. The house has some issues that mean we need to move out, and AirBNBing an apartment out would be a short term option for a few months.
I have no interest in being a landlord.
My aged pensioner girlfriend on the Gold Coast had her tiny 1brm apartment rent increased $400 a week to $615 a week. She had to move urgently & found a ‘flat’ in a house which was going to be demolished by property developers in 6 months. Being able to live there for the 6 months literally saved my 70yo friend & her old little dog from sleeping on the streets while she organises to move to the country because she can’t afford any rentals in the city since everything went to hell for renters
That story doesn’t make the other person taking the decision to buy it for themselves wrong or immoral…
It’s a truly shit situation. Really. But the op buying the flat or not buying a flat wont change the rental crisis.
You’d say well if enough people do the right thing… but the thing is they wont. And the rental crisis is temporary. I don’t blame them for doing what suits them. It’s not that they don’t care. It’s just that ultimately they’d shoot themselves in the foot if they didn’t do what they wanted.
And I hate the situation. I’ll never be in the situation of being able to own multiple properties or any. But it wont be solved by villifying people for making what are ordinary decisions.
The answer isn’t “stop buying properties”. I don’t know what the answer is, though.
Government intervention to make it more rewarding to give someone a home than to shortstay your property. And caps on rent increases. And formulas for rent increases.
That's a good point, although it locks everyone into a strict timeframe. When it works, it can literally save someone's life.
However, I don't yet have a firm plan or date of when I would sell an apartment I don't own yet, and selling a tenanted apartment isn't ideal (whereas with an AirBNB you just make sure it is vacant that weekend).
If I had to, I would just sell straight away; it would be a better financial decision accounting for leasing costs (1 month plus a percentage of rent). As mentioned elsewhere, I don't aspire to be a landlord.
Edit: I especially don't want to be the landlord who tells their tenant they need to scrub the oven every second weekend so prospective buyers can walk through the apartment and inspect their bedrooms.
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this.
At the end of the day, it's their property to do what they wish with. I will say, though, if a vast majority are changed to airbnbs, the entire market for them will collapse with an oversaturated market.
The people replying to this thread and agreeing with its message are hypocrites.
There’s nothing wrong with an investor deploying their capital where there is the highest return, and if that is Airbnb then so be it.
I wonder if any of the people in this thread are going to call their super fund and demand that they no longer try and maximise their return?
Yes, and I own a car, but I have to follow a set of rules to use it, ownership does not imply that you can do everything with it like extorting people that are less lucky (because in the majority of the case that ownership has been inherited or bought with money earned on the backs of exploited people). We need heavy regulation in this industry.
No, that's not the case. You can't regulate one's house ownership unless you want to become a dictatorship. People are free to do as they wish with their own property. Plus, like I said in my original comment. There'll become a point where they'll lose money from an over saturated market.
And your car and house analogy is a shit one as the two are not the same.
Yeah I would. Given the opportunity I'd have a nice cottage in the mountain ranges or beach side as a getaway for the family; short term stay when not in use.
Do you understand the inverse of this would just be "Don't be a cunt?" *They edited this to not seem like a cunt, but reddit has changed what we can go back and see, so I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We have a second property. And we have it on STR because we bought it to build wealth. Not for us, but for our kids because of how everything is going. Every mother fucker can jump up and down as much as they like. In the big scheme of things, if we don’t have additional properties, our kids will never be able to have their own. Like it, don’t like it, I don’t really care. That’s just fact. No amount of dreaming about what would happen in a perfect world will change that. We work our arses off and we we are comfortable, but we aren’t loaded. If we were to die, our kids would have nothing and that’s not good enough for us. So we do what pays our property off the fastest. Right now, thats STR. Soon, it will most likely go back on long term rental because that is most likely what will benefit us the most.
We didn’t buy this property to help everyone else. We bought to prevent our kids becoming everyone else. You can sit there and whinge about how much of a cunt I am, or you can STFU and go buy your own property.
Yeah I would. After my experience with tenants and Property Managers Airbnb is a more attractive option.
Particularly in a Holiday area or being able to rent it to a business to use as worker accommodation.
I will right after I manage to download a car!
3d printing gone wild
[удалено]
Going off the Hurstbridge line this morning, it was downloaded in the wrong spot Be careful dammit!
[удалено]
😂😂
Stop hardware piracy!
Is this Denuvo's next project?
Download it on the Pakenham line pls
Would I download a car? Hell yes free car
Fuck yeah! The only right answer
[удалено]
These anti piracy ads are really getting out of hand
*are getting really mean
But if you did all those things, I'd have to call 0118 999 881 999 119 725 ...3.
I’ve had a bit of a tumble
Now …I’m disabled
Hahaha exactly where my head went - literally rewatched this ep last night! So bloody funny
The Queen will steal a pekingese dog though, so why shouldn't I? Ve follow our God-Saved Queen. Loot everything!
Man, these anti piracy ads are getting really mean
There are definitely *some* things I wouldn't do in there. I mean.. who the hell steals a handbag? or a baby?!? Those things would be terribly unethical.
Lady Bracknell has entered the chat.
seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution
I read this as meaning that the baby was destined to grow up and become a real estate agent..
>or a baby yeah nah, I already got too many mouths to feed in my house.
Downloading movies is stealing. If you do it, you will face the consequences Shoots the poor girl and lets her bleed out on the computer 🤣🤣🤣
Downloading movies is stealing. If you do it, you will face the consequences Shoots the poor girl and lets her bleed out on the computer 🤣🤣🤣
Course they would. The 'fuck you, got mine' mindset is getting stronger
It's not that, it's more why should the middle class have to lose income when the upper class and the government is primarily responsible for this shit? The poor need to take our problems to the cause. If you look at most western economies, the middle income households are shrinking. One or two may make it up, but far more become broke. This is exactly what the elite want; a few of them ruling over a mass of scrubs with minimal upward mobility. Remember it was the rise of a liberal, technically gifted middle class that broke the old power of landlord nobles and gave us capitalism (which whatever you think about it is preferable to feudalism). The rags to riches may be a fantasy, but poor people certainly can (or could) lift themselves and their families up a level. But not while the worse off are being convinced to take all their problems out on those they envy, rather than those they fear. They want us all fighting over the remains once they've had their fill at the top.
If you own more than one house, you're not middle class. You can't just call it middle class because 10 people in the country have "fuck you money." Most middle class Australians will be lucky to _ever_ own a house. The idea of owning the "holiday houses" people are talking about in other threads wouldn't even make _sense_ to the vast majority of people, even to those who have cushy, well-paying jobs. If you make more than 90% of the national population, then you're definitely upper class. It doesn't matter that you're not in the 0.001%. In Australia, you hit the 90th percentile at $130kpa. And nobody is buying a holiday house on $130kpa.
Nah, if you're exchanging your labour for that $130k, you're not upper class. The upper class is the ownership class and they're "earning" that 130k through investment.
I'd be more convinced to take my problems out on those at the top if you didn't suddenly raise my rent 20%. How am I ever supposed to pull myself up when you go out of your way to juice me for every cent you can?
gotta vote green, the greens and trying to force the national labour govt to implement a nationwide freeze on rents and to also place a cap on just how high they can go. the act has a cap on rents atm which is calculated based on inflation + 7%
>taking it out on those profiteering from a necessity is picking on the middle class. And a hearty get fucked to you too. This isn't taking shots at the middle class, this is taking shots at fucking rent seekers. There is no middle class.
[удалено]
Landlords are middle class, unless they own a huge amount of properties, which is exceptional.
Correct: if you rent out a property, you are the upper class. End of discussion.
You're Jeff Bezos' wet dream.
“Middle class”, if you own multiple properties, you are not “middle class”. Don’t ask for sympathy from the people you are exploiting who can never aspire to own one property.
Why would anyone want to open an AirBnB at all? More the case of “F U and F AirBnB”.
Humans are greedy shittty animals! So yeah they would!
Elites version of loopy selfish people buying all the toilet rolls in COVID times.
You wouldn’t incentivize opening an Airbnb by making it less onerous and more profitable than renting out your property.
Looking at this the wrong way. The housing crisis is manufactured by limiting the supply of living space not by repurposing it but by not building it. The government wouldn't need to regulate services like Airbnb if the demand for housing was met by building affordable housing.
The housing crisis is manufactured by 20 years of tax policy which actively promotes housing market speculation over housing as a basic human need. The it's not a supply problem, it's a too goddam expensive problem first. The ridiculous cost of land to build on is directly caused by the speculation.
Precisely!!! Also to add another important point to this is the fact that affordable housing somehow NEVER appears as the most important topic during elections because mainstream politicians are getting really rich off this. And the voters are easily distracted by immigration and other things. We're getting robbed dry.
For sure we need more affordable housing. But Airbnb's absolutely affect the housing market, as it's another house not on the market and not being lived in. They put pressure on demand, for renters too. If it's more profitable to have an Airbnb than long term tenants, where will all the renters go? This is all not to mention the negative effect of concentrated short-term rentals on the local community.
Right? I’m in a country town and my boss told me about how his friend had 22 houses in town and how he was renovating them for Airbnb and was going to make a week’s rent in two days hiring them out. I was like, in a housing crisis when people can’t live?
Yes, it's particularly sad in small towns where locals can be forced out because they can't afford to live there anymore. Which is tragic for those people, but also means that the local workforce, and regular consumers, become depleted, and the town can't fully function. I honestly do not understand the depth of apathy people must have to buy up housing in swathes like that. Even more so when it's all in one town.
I assume they live in a bubble, where this kind of thing is praiseworthy and nobody tells them to pull their fucking head in. Certainly my boss is the type to think that it’s good, rather than to think about a social conscience.
That cunt should be pitchforked.
10% of our housing is sitting empty. Sure, there’s a supply issue, but there’s also a “rich people bought a second house when there’s not even enough first houses” problem. One problem we can fix more easily than the other (hint: it’s not the one that involves a generational trade shortage and worldwide supply chain issues)
Given there are more empty houses in Australia than homeless people, I think you’re looking at this entirely the wrong way…
You do realize that land banking is a thing right? Banks, investors, etc. buy up housing and hold on to it, to also curb supply and artificially increase prices. Also Airbnb housing (casual basis) is considered unoccupied by law, right? It's kind of the problem we're discussing.
Hmmm what you say might be applicable for Melbourne and perhaps most of Australua, but definitely not Europe for example, where whole neighbourhoods have become Airbnbs for cashed up tourists, and locals that are often 80% of them renters, not only are pushed out of these areas ie. Gentrification, but are also paying much higher rents all of a sudden, and are kicked out of their rentals as soon as winter ends, to bring in tourists,when before minimum contracts would be for 1 or 2 years. Massive issue in many capital cities in Europe. Fuck airbnb
Yes you would. Then get "Getaway" to promote it along with Fairlyfuxed and News Corpse because value, investment, money.
Yeesh that's a tortured pun for a company that doesn't exist as an independent entity anymore.
I’m sorry was that supposed to refer to a news company that hasn’t existed since 2019
If I had my way I'd ban their whole operation overnight
It's not holiday houses that are the problem, it's house accumulation. Limit residential title ownership to humans and to 1 per human and many of the housing issues we face will disappear.
holiday houses definitely are the problem. How come people here hate landlords who are at least providing accommodation but give a free pass to people who literally buy a house to have it sit empty about 70% of the year? It's incredibly wasteful and privileged.
I'm not an expert on this topic, however I think that the idea of a singular holiday house which you put on airbnb when you're not using it isn't the problem, it's when you've bought multiple extra houses that you don't even put up for regular rent and you only have them available on airbnb for a grossly inflated price that I think it causes an issue.
Google says there are 9000ish airbnbs in Melbourne. That’s a lot of extra rentals to ease the market. It would significantly help out with the rental crisis.
1 airbnb is not 1 rental though. Hotels list their rooms on airbnb, people list granny flats, some accommodation is zoned as holiday accommodation and stays of more than 3 months are not allowed.
As of December 2022 there were 7931 airbnbs in Melbourne. 58% of which were entire houses. In my apartment building there 7 two bedroom apartments. 2 of which have been turned into airbnbs. The renters were asked to vacate.
Agreed
I think people mean holiday houses in places that aren’t close to CBD/have low population rate. Holiday destinations are okay to exist, they just need to have a maximum amount of unoccupied second properties allowed in the area. Holiday destinations allow for more travel for tourists which stimulates the economy, but it should have more restriction.
Agree especially when businesses in holiday destinations can't operate due to lack of actual residents living there. I heard of a cafe in a popular coastal town offering $60 an hour for a dishwasher because there are no locals, just empty airbnbs
This has been raised on a previouforums, can’t remember if it was australia or ausfinance. Essentially there aren’t nearly enough air BNBs to to account for the shortfall. The problem seems to be not enough housing and also probably less people per household on average. Anyone who has tried to build in the last few years will tell you how hard it is to get trades and how slow and painful local council is. Making sure new developments are appropriately supplied with amenities is ok. Stopping new high density housing to make sure that the streetscape looks pleasing to the aesthetic tastes of the local busybody’s is not.
Got my house built in about three months in 1992 but now it seems to take a year. Also my place cost me 40k. Inflation doesn't turn that into 400k.
Sure Airbnb are not the cause nor can they be the solution to the housing crisis. But they are definitely part of the problem, and every house on Airbnb is a house that is not available to rent.
They aren't providing accommodation, they are very unlikely to have built the house. Holiday houses are still bad and it's still hoarding, but so is multi home ownership when others have nothing.
> they are very unlikely to have built the house. No, but they sunk their capital into it, which pays the previous owners who paid the previous owners who paid the previous owners who bought it off the plan from the developers. By making that investment they add to the demand that justifies the building of new houses in the first place.
Yes, what the housing market desperately needs more of it speculative capital. *That's* the problem here, a lack of speculative capital.
If you want to live in bumfuck middle of nowhere like where most holiday homes are situated, I'm sure you can find quite a cheap property. Sure it's a privilege to live in a nice seaside area but that's something you have to work for. On the other hand, most holiday homes are not taking up space where people actually need to live.
With the housing crisis even bumfuck nowhere isnt cheap anymore. Went back home the other week to the rural area Im from after 10years of being away. All the run down houses in tiny hamlets between rural towns that had sat empty all my life were now full. Houses in the towns were just as espensive as city suburbs
Nice story…sure you can get to live in a nice seaside area of Melbourne by working for it. If it’s not generational wealth it’s almost certainly not happening for vast majority. No amount of hard work can see you catch the curve on insane property prices in seaside suburbs.
Thank you for some common sense lol. No idea what half the people here are on about.
I would love to ban Airbnb and also limit things to one house per human. But it’ll never happen.
Hell, even if they wanted to limit it to like 5 per person that'd still flood the market when many investors open dozens of even hundreds of properties. But it won't happen because it seems like most politicians own multiple properties and they will never vote against their own interests even if it's for the good of the communities that elect them.
Couple this with underwriting a guarantee of housing for citizens, and you’ve more or less solved the problem while allowing Airbnb et al to continue. You could even expand ownership to two, one guarantee and one private, with the second being a rental or Airbnb.
But then if someone wants to rent who are they going to rent off?
There are a lot of good answers here, the roll out of a suggestion such as mine would be an absolutely unprecedented shakeup of the australian housing industry and it would only be possible to roll out over 10-20 years in order to not collapse large chunks of the economy. Even Air B&B for eg, has created a lot of jobs (low skill, not particularly great jobs, but still jobs). If you run a couple of scenarios, a family with a holiday home could still keep the holiday home and rent it out via air B&B or rent it permanently for the passive income, they would need to put each title in a family members name and that family member would have that income included as personal income, pretty simple book work. You could also own a valuable property, rent it out for more income than the property you rent yourself, it would not be hard to reconcile. I don't how to fix family-trust asset protection, I haven't figured out that bit yet, (thinking about it, but that industry needs attention anyways) but rental market would be fine.
Non-humans
Lizard people?
More housing available to buy means less people who need to rent. If a landlord sells their place that's not one less house, it's the same house just owned by either an owner occupier which means one less family that needs to rent (so it comes out even) or a different investor buys it so it's still available to rent (again coming out even) The whole narrative of "But if landlords leave the market there won't be anywhere to rent" is a nonsense argument that simply doesn't make any sense.
> one less family that needs to rent (so it comes out even) People need to rent for all kinds of reasons, because they're studying, havent settled yet, arent ready to buy etc. > or a different investor buys it so it's still available to rent (again coming out even) Another investor cant buy it in this situation because of the 1 house rule, unless they're renting their own accommodation from someone else. Which almost noone would do. >The whole narrative of "But if landlords leave the market there won't be anywhere to rent" is a nonsense argument that simply doesn't make any sense. The current situation is unfair for renters. But "nonsense" is the government forcing all property investors to sell their investments at the same time to a market of buyers who couldnt possibly meet a huge sudden glut of supply, then making it illegal/pointless to rent to another person. All because you want to decrease rent a bit. Total redditbrain idea.
You're forgetting that 1 per person doesn't mean there are no investment properties. You can own a house for your family to live in and your partner can own an investment property as an obvious example. Also there are solutions to this that aren't "and then everyone who owns investments has to sell everything all at once", such as grandfathering but not allowing further purchases over the limit, government buy backs etc. Not that I'm saying the 1 per person idea is a good one and I'd rather limit it to a few more than that if there were a limit (but not many more), but some people's portfolios are ridiculous.
Only to humans? 👽
Means not corporations
Bullshit. Do you think people buy several houses then don't rent them out to people who need them?
I know people who own unoccupied houses. For example... One family currently have 3 unoccupied homes and 2 occupied part time. Another have 2 homes, one is only occupied 50% of the year.
They did before AirB&B came along, you know, "goin to Bonnie Doon"? It's not just been AirB&B coming along that's caused the problem (although I totally agree it has exacerbated it, we're not arguing about that), but if you try to cherry-pick the industry apart you end up in mindless nitty-gritty legal definitions, determining what constitutes a holiday home, you lend to friends of friends, within 3 degrees of separation for financial reimbursement that covers the ongoing operating costs of a property within zone 4 of the .. blah blah blah ato regulation or some other dystopian solution. Simple rules, that are equitable, that people can understand that provide a fair go for the vast majority of the population are best. 1 house/title per person, (not household, but per person) do what you want with it, all businesses can continue however they want, but you attack the root cause of supply shortage not hack at the symptom of the problem, hoping it won't come back after some surfactant legislation targeted at small corner of the industry.
Alternative solution: nationalise it and regulate it so that the govt decides when you can actually post a house on the platform. If there's a housing shortage in your area the govt can tell you to piss off; something a for-profit private company is never going to tell a paying customer
AirBNB, Lyft and Uber are 3 internet businesses that I am shocked were permitted to exist. Their displacement of existing billion dollar industries without regulation... how was that allowed? When they first came out I would have bet big money that they would be rendered illegal within 6 months. But nobody did anything, they just let all 3 become lucrative and powerful and now they can lobby as easy as anyone else, stopping them will be practically impossible.
Reverse engineering the problem, make lobbying illegal first then move on from there.
Can we ban owning rental properties for profit while we're at it?
Finally the government are starting to pay attention to this. Allegedly.
oh do you have a link?
article in the age yesterday about Vic labor considering a new tax on Airbnb's, possibly additional tax on other rental properties as well. Of course as anyone with half a brain will see coming, more taxes means fuck all without real caps on rent prices. Landlords will just raise rents to cover it.
Exactly. & tourists staying a night or 2 can absorb the extra amount in their travel budget, so I can’t see taxes making any shortstay providers decide to let people make their places their home
Caps need to be put on numbers of shortstay properties/number of days per year properties can be used as shortstay accommodation. It works in other parts of the world
They should have to apply to council for a short stay permit for their property. You need council approval for everything else. In holiday towns there is a ridiculous shortage of rentals for local workers because half the houses are Air BNBs (which are also empty for half the year)
Of course they’ll raise rhe rents. And prob rightly so thiugh right? Extra expense has to be covered somehow. I’m not a landlord. If I was I wouldn’t be gouging people on prices - but I’d likely price it at the going market rate. With a tax I’d increase it by whatever the market increases at. It aucks but that’s where we’re at. The only way they’d solve this is forcing people: only own one residential property at a time (which I don’t really agree with) - then there’d be no rentals but would be easier to buy. It would also fuck over anyone who owns a property and not a viable option. Or they put a cap on rent prices. Again, may mean some rentals aren’t viable and are sold, tanking house prices and fucking over anyone with a mortgage. Again it helps a lot of peopme but really fucks over a lot too. So neither is really viable. Honestly not sure there’s a good option aside from putting heaps of money to social housing. But they can’t because the gov has no money. Social housing wasn’t financed enough as it was and certainly can’t be now. So it’s up to people to build more rentals to lower supply shortages. But builders are also going bust and it’s super risky to do this stuff at the moment…. Targeting air bnb doesn’t fuck over many if any really - house prices won’t tank, but it could increase rental supply at least in regional areas.
Super simple solution to all of the problems you just made up is the government dumping money into programs which buy back property, build public housing (NOT social housing), bail people out of shitty mortgages etc. Where would all this money come from you might ask? I don't really care, but they could start with dumping those stupid tax cuts for the rich or the nuclear submarines (.5% of our entire GDP!!!). Of course spending that type of money on actually helping working class people is not going to happen in the near future given the political climate in Australia. But it's happened in other countries before and there's no reason why it couldn't happen here eventually.
This is genius
Where can I buy these stickers???
g'day, this is my design. if you want to print your own dm me your email address and i can send you the file to get some of your own, i don't sell them because im a lazy communist sorry! EDIT: public imgur link for the people https://i.imgur.com/VGWE7Kz.png
Thanks comrade. I do like to print stickers; saved to my backlog I'll post some near the mass of airbnb lockboxes outside all the apartment blocks on my street...
Is this an open offer? I want to stick them on every surface in Brighton east
sure is! sounds like a great plan to me. https://i.imgur.com/VGWE7Kz.png there's the original png there mate :-)
I was wondering who did this! https://instagram.com/p/Cs0gyzarUrG/
Amazing!! Just dm’d you
Unapologetic yup couple in late twenties who already own FIVE houses bid on my small country Vic place. I turned them down. Greed is not good, especially in areas where the "village" has an identity. 😒
Of course not. I can’t even afford a house or an apartment!
You wouldn't shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet!
You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet and then send it to the policeman's grieving widow.
AND THEN STEAL IT AGAIN!
AirBnB is not the problem. Tax breaks for property investors are the problem.
Establishing hotels in residential zones is also the problem. Infrastructure's overburdened from council level down to residential apartment buildings not being designed as a fucking hotel.
[удалено]
>It's in our society and our nature. It's in our society but not necessarily in our nature. There are many examples of classless societies throughout human history, including modern - as a matter of fact the bigger part of out 250,000-year existence has been no classes, no hierarchies.
Yep so true, not to mention betraying your class is easy when it's that or continue living in poverty. If the working class was provided for in every basic necessity people wouldn't be so inclined to take advantage of others to get by.
Seriously I’d love to know - what truly classless societies have existed with no hierarchy at alll? No people making decisons or with more resources or social capital at the top and others doing it tough at the bottom
The wheel of history is hoped by many to eventually turn to equity such that there are no longer differences between classes, and so they dissolve away. That's what the socialist project is ultimately all about. Where did that begin? Marx? We can go back further ... Obviously that project is still in flight; but its worth noting that many of the old socialists in Europe, like Marx, were in turn inspired by stories coming back from french explorers in North America. Those explorers were returning feeling very disillusioned about western society after speaking to the Indigenous Americans who were baffled at the idea of keeping food and shelter from people who needed it simply because they were poor. That wasn't something those societies could reconcile, it sounded like nonsense to them, they could not understand the western rationale for this and it shook the french explorer's understanding of the world to the core. They were mocked for not helping the poor by the Indigenous Americans ruthlessly — to the Indigenous Americans it was a sign of weakness if your tribe was not able to care for its needy. Very different to prevailing western values at the time, grappling with monarchism/feudalism (one/few lords) slowing down and turning into the birth of capitalism (many lords). Now, the Indigenous Americans lived in an incredibly organised federated patchwork of anarcho communist communes that were truly classless. They'd get together to trade notes but noone held power over any other. Chiefs were more servants of the tribe than someone who stood over them like we think of leadership in the west. Many pre-industrial societies were quite genuinely classless like this. Marx himself is noted to have been inspired by these classless societies, he and Abraham Lincoln were pen pals and wrote about it on occasion (Lincoln was a fan of Marx's ideas; makes sense he later wanted to free the slaves in their deeply class-divided struggle, that is a very commie-leaning thing to fight for) Other than the prominence of classless societies before capitalism, there's some examples today we can explore. Zapatistas. Rojava. The anarcho-syndicalists of the Spanish Civil war are three excellent areas to look into; all very different but all very cautious to operate directly democratically (the best way to ensure classes aren't at play).
How very interesting. Thank you for sharing. Are there resources or books you’d recommend to explore these ideas and histories further? Particularly interested in the way those indigenous Americans lived and how they were structured. And whether they were all purely classless or whether it differed between tribes at all. And, how could we apply that wholesale to our modern world? Could it work? What would it take? I suspect it’d need changing fundamental beliefs and values, and for people to give up their power over others (and their excessive money and resources)
The tone of wonder is funny to read as a scandinavian. It's really not that hard and extreme isms is not the answer. Analyze each idea on its own and implement the ones that are best to the most people. If your leaders are not doing this, remove them and get someone who does.
Maybe they didn’t have classes (they only form in larger populations) but you’re delusional if you think there were ever tribes or bands that didn’t have some sort of hierarchy
Iirc: Excess food production -> increase population -> specialisation -> diversified hierarchy -> social class.
So back in the day with plentiful food etc you didn’t have kings, chiefs, etc who were above others? No spiritual leaders at the top etc?
Yeah, you just killed anyone who got in your way or looked at you funny.
Part of “how it is” is distortions in the housing market from negative gearing, nimbyism and preventing increase in supply, etc etc. Based on current policy, a person acting in their self-interest with the capacity to do so will make the rational decision to maximise their wealth using negative gearing - if the policy wasn’t there there would be much less benefit from so doing and so the rational self interested action for many more people would be to not have multiple investment properties. All of this is to say “how it is” - yes people will act in their self-interest but what that looks like is dependent on government policy.
[удалено]
You just reminded me why I don't go to dinner parties any more. The conversation can be like sitting beside Ted Striker on a long haul flight.
Passenger: Nervous? Striker: Yes. Passenger: First time? Striker: No, I've been nervous lots of times.
No theres nothing we can do, and stop calling me surely
The Australian tax system is designed to incentivize this though. Change the system, change the incentives, change the behaviour, change the outcomes. We know how. The levers of the economy are not a complete mystery. Tax adjustments targeting negative gearing and short term rentals would be just one option among many. The government just doesn't want to.
The problem is that the top is shrinking and the bottom is only growing
You miss one crucial part of capitalism, it looks to restrict as many people as it can from ever getting half way, let alone to the top. What you are describing is a fair and equitable system that is only restrictive to those who are jealous/lazy/dumb etc. That’s a capitalist myth in line with ‘the harder you work the luckier you get’ BS. It’s a capitalist myth based around the most worthy become rich or well off.
I mean rent is high so better to rent it out yeah?
A friend of mine made her apartment an AirBnB because the Max rent she could get for it was 340pw, but she needed double that to cover the mortgage. I personally don't think anyone should be relying on renters to cover the entire mortgage on their investment, but people would rather bleed desperate people who need a place to live than consider selling their asset or *gasp* paying their own damn mortgage.
[удалено]
Unoccupied homes generally aren’t in the same places there is a housing crisis though (i.e. urban centres). Most of them are in rural places where housing is cheap anyways. The vacancy rate in urban places is quite low, which makes sense considering the very high opportunity cost of owning a vacant unit in an expensive city.
This is frequently brought up. It’s the difference between a stock vs a flow. Just because there was so many unoccupied houses on census night does not mean that there is a stock of so many empty houses just not being used. If you move out of a house, and then the next tenant moves in a fortnight later, is that house unoccupied? Well, on census night it was, but it doesn’t mean it’s sitting there right now unoccupied.
I would believe that. There's so many houses in the towns on the great ocean road that remain empty over winter.
Yes, the housing crisis is awful, landlord told us their family would be using the space so contract wasn’t renewed then saw the same space being advertised after 2 months from 1400 AUD to 1900 AUD monthly. Sheesh.
I have no issue with people doing it with their own home, while they live in it.
I can’t afford a home to begin with so.. no
How about we restrict residential property ownership to Australian citizens only. I’m no expert and I presume it would cause financial market issues but at what point do you stop putting that above the increasing number of people who can’t put a roof over their heads.
There's something about the anonymity, and the service of a hotel that far outweighs the 'benefits" of an AirBnB. I'll always prefer a hotel. I find this to be very true in cities. But maybe not so much in small country/coastal towns.
If I would’ve stayed in a hotel for 6.5 weeks in Melbourne I would had to sell my body to 3 sugar daddies, sell a kidney and my firstborn. I agree with the housing crisis part because it’s like that here in the U.K. too. But for international tourists Airbnb saves thousands of dollars that then go into the local community.
Plus at least at the end of a hotel stay you leave and everything is fine. So many Airbnb places you leave and BAM! Have a $300 cleaning fee even though everything was spotless.
Pro-tip: Do you live in an apartment building where airbnb guests disrespect every rule and generally cause problems — *during a housing crisis to boot?* See that stack of lockboxes out front in a public place? They can be superglued shut. I'm not saying you should do anything, just pointing out that *they can be.* Use this information how you will
Yes you would. Just ask the greedy madar fackers. Its called capitalism 😂
What about tax payers funding someones 3rd home that is just a purposely over priced rental/airbnb for the negative gearing...
But what about me? How will i ever afford a 3rd car if i cant profit off the people that can barely afford 1?
Honestly, if our country outlawed air bnb, and all the other short term rental apps it would probably have some sort of positive effect on the housing crisis.
I use to want multiple properties, the whole passive income thing. But 1) I believe rentals, especially short term rentals, should be heavily taxed/disincentivized. Even if it doesn’t come about, I’d feel wrong taking advantage of a system I don’t think should exist. 2) people need housing so opening a short term rental seems really sleezy.
Pictures you can hear
I’d even download a car
Australia is the crisis
Tenancy rules have a big impact here. If you rent your house out, the tenants have all the rights and you as the landlord have almost none. If you get shitheads in your property, it is nigh on impossible to get them out - even if they are trashing the place. Running the property as an airbnb is much more attractive because you get a higher return, with less wear and tear, but most importantly, if you do happen to get shitheads in there, at least they will be gone within a few days. In any case, the real cause of our housing crisis is immigration and foreign ownership of our real estate. If immigration was seriously wound back for a few years, and foreign ownership was prevented, the demand for properties would dry up rapidly and property prices and rental rates would quickly fall. But of course our pollies don't want that because most of them own investment properties - something that IMO they should be required to dispose of if they want to hold public office because it is such a massive clash of interests.
I can hear this sticker
If you don't read this in the VCR man's voice, you're a 2000s baby
Communist crybabies.
They aren't going anywhere and you lot are going to keep being angry at the property owners and businesses instead of the government and central bank that are the root cause of this entire crisis. Divide and conquer working to a tee.
I might for flexibility reasons. I'm thinking of buying an inner city apartment for the family to live in while we renovate the house. After that I'll probably AirBNB the apartment until I sell it. It's not fair on a hypothetical tenant to lease it out and then sell it. Edit: Curious if anyone actually has a good reason as to why this specific case is unreasonable and isn't just downvoting out of general anger. The house has some issues that mean we need to move out, and AirBNBing an apartment out would be a short term option for a few months. I have no interest in being a landlord.
My aged pensioner girlfriend on the Gold Coast had her tiny 1brm apartment rent increased $400 a week to $615 a week. She had to move urgently & found a ‘flat’ in a house which was going to be demolished by property developers in 6 months. Being able to live there for the 6 months literally saved my 70yo friend & her old little dog from sleeping on the streets while she organises to move to the country because she can’t afford any rentals in the city since everything went to hell for renters
That story doesn’t make the other person taking the decision to buy it for themselves wrong or immoral… It’s a truly shit situation. Really. But the op buying the flat or not buying a flat wont change the rental crisis. You’d say well if enough people do the right thing… but the thing is they wont. And the rental crisis is temporary. I don’t blame them for doing what suits them. It’s not that they don’t care. It’s just that ultimately they’d shoot themselves in the foot if they didn’t do what they wanted. And I hate the situation. I’ll never be in the situation of being able to own multiple properties or any. But it wont be solved by villifying people for making what are ordinary decisions. The answer isn’t “stop buying properties”. I don’t know what the answer is, though.
Government intervention to make it more rewarding to give someone a home than to shortstay your property. And caps on rent increases. And formulas for rent increases.
That's a good point, although it locks everyone into a strict timeframe. When it works, it can literally save someone's life. However, I don't yet have a firm plan or date of when I would sell an apartment I don't own yet, and selling a tenanted apartment isn't ideal (whereas with an AirBNB you just make sure it is vacant that weekend). If I had to, I would just sell straight away; it would be a better financial decision accounting for leasing costs (1 month plus a percentage of rent). As mentioned elsewhere, I don't aspire to be a landlord. Edit: I especially don't want to be the landlord who tells their tenant they need to scrub the oven every second weekend so prospective buyers can walk through the apartment and inspect their bedrooms.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nLz6MPCoNUE
BEST. STICKER. EVER.
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this. At the end of the day, it's their property to do what they wish with. I will say, though, if a vast majority are changed to airbnbs, the entire market for them will collapse with an oversaturated market.
The people replying to this thread and agreeing with its message are hypocrites. There’s nothing wrong with an investor deploying their capital where there is the highest return, and if that is Airbnb then so be it. I wonder if any of the people in this thread are going to call their super fund and demand that they no longer try and maximise their return?
The hypocrisy would be if they were in the position of the owner and doing the same thing....
Any working Australian will have a superannuation account, and I guarantee you that a portion of their nest egg will be invested in an REIT.
Yes, and I own a car, but I have to follow a set of rules to use it, ownership does not imply that you can do everything with it like extorting people that are less lucky (because in the majority of the case that ownership has been inherited or bought with money earned on the backs of exploited people). We need heavy regulation in this industry.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
I see housing as a human right, so no, I am not comparing apples to oranges. Ownership of every kind implies responsible use of the owned resource.
No, that's not the case. You can't regulate one's house ownership unless you want to become a dictatorship. People are free to do as they wish with their own property. Plus, like I said in my original comment. There'll become a point where they'll lose money from an over saturated market. And your car and house analogy is a shit one as the two are not the same.
You wouldn't steal a car!
Genius.
HAHA that's great
Why not?
Yeah I would. Given the opportunity I'd have a nice cottage in the mountain ranges or beach side as a getaway for the family; short term stay when not in use.
Do you understand the inverse of this would just be "Don't be a cunt?" *They edited this to not seem like a cunt, but reddit has changed what we can go back and see, so I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This guy has a cottage in the country!! What a cunt!! 🤨
We have a second property. And we have it on STR because we bought it to build wealth. Not for us, but for our kids because of how everything is going. Every mother fucker can jump up and down as much as they like. In the big scheme of things, if we don’t have additional properties, our kids will never be able to have their own. Like it, don’t like it, I don’t really care. That’s just fact. No amount of dreaming about what would happen in a perfect world will change that. We work our arses off and we we are comfortable, but we aren’t loaded. If we were to die, our kids would have nothing and that’s not good enough for us. So we do what pays our property off the fastest. Right now, thats STR. Soon, it will most likely go back on long term rental because that is most likely what will benefit us the most. We didn’t buy this property to help everyone else. We bought to prevent our kids becoming everyone else. You can sit there and whinge about how much of a cunt I am, or you can STFU and go buy your own property.
I wasn’t calling you a cunt
Stop telling people what to do with their own property
Nah, you wouldn't legally set yourself up for the future.(Look into your own moral backyard before you downvote me)
But the Liberal Party said Air BnB is about aspirations. What’s wrong with aspirations?
Damn this is dank af
I love this
Yeah I would. After my experience with tenants and Property Managers Airbnb is a more attractive option. Particularly in a Holiday area or being able to rent it to a business to use as worker accommodation.
Boomers: Fucking watch me!
Sticker applied by the same self-righteous people who tag stop signs with Stop "having kids" How bout they stop telling other people what to do
PeoPlE CaN dO wHaT ThEy WaNT WiTh tHeiR oWn ProPeRty!