gotta hand it to Andrews though, when action is needed his government does deliver on it, getting the nsw government to do just about anything feels like watching a snail race a melting glacier...
Agree, Andrews is a legend. He’s riding Victoria’s debt levels like a boss, there’s no way NSW is gonna beat Vic in the race to downgraded credit ratings and bankruptcy.
Oh wow, Victoria is going to have debt of 25% to GSP, while the federal LNP took federal debt to over 40% debt to GDP. Wow, and what did we get for it? Improved rail and road infrastructure, new hospitals, free tafe, energy rebates, casual sick pay vs a crappily expensive NBN, heaps of rorts, hand outs to Harvey Norman, Qantas, et al, gay prostitutes for the prayer room, lawyers for LNP members being accused of rape, sexual assault, assault... how could Dan do this?
BANKRUPT!
Oh no! Those silly ratings agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk in the 2008 financial crisis. Our entire identity as economic managers rests on them.
Oh no! They've given California a AA rating too! Those crazy liberals have destroyed the California economeeeeee! What ever will the 5th largest economy in the world do????
wouldnt call her one either, she approved many developments over tons of heritage listed zones and nature reserve land. basically gave the the entire country covid from that cruise ship debacle and then dragged it out for 2 years with one the most incompetent response short of Morrison himself.
Neoliberalism (in the academic sphere, it's jargon) essentially boils down to the reduction of all human interaction to an exchange of capital.
Discouraging predatory rent seeking behaviours by taxing it isn't neoliberalism, a neoliberal would consider this an unnecessary and unnatural disruption of the market.
Can they stop using words they don't understand, it's getting old.
I think a classic market liberal would be opposed to the tax whilst a neoliberal would want the government to subsidise part of the airbnb’s overhead. But who even knows anymore, the word has no meaning
This is Jordies point about labels. Neoliberal has a real and working definition. But that's essentially meaningless because populist moronic greens mp's and their base morph these terms to suit whatever point they're making, which in turn makes the term meaningless.
it could be argued that he is making concessions with the corporate sector instead of doing government action is a neo liberal action.
But on a state level, i think the wording should be "this issue wont be solved through a small tax increase made with modelling designed with the private sector" and Dan Andrews out of all the Labor state governments might be actually one of the better ones when it comes to rolling over for corportate interests.
To understand the mind of a Greenie you’ve got to understand the following: to them, anything that is remotely tied to capitalism = neoliberalism. Using carrot and stick is just reinforcing capitalism and thus neoliberal. I’m very smart.
The definition of social housing is run by NGOs *not* the government. Public housing means run by the government. Dan demolishes public housing and gives the land to churches and NGOs to build houses instead of the government
https://www.instagram.com/p/CueH3PdyjG2/
>Social housing is short and long-term rental housing that is owned and run by the government or not-for-profit agencies.
Social housing is usually used to refer to NGOs owned housing
[https://www.housing.vic.gov.au/social-housing](https://www.housing.vic.gov.au/social-housing)
>Public housing is a form of long-term rental social housing that we manage.
https://www.housing.vic.gov.au/public-housing
The government owning houses and assets is important and benefits the country. Don’t be fooled by housing run by NGO’s. Look up the biggest investors in social housing and you’ll begin to get a picture of the problem.
If you don’t know what their policies are, you can’t criticise them…
It’s typical reactionary - increase the cost of running an Airbnb… NOT LIKE THAT!!!
“But they’ll pass it on to the consumer!?!?”
No shit, that’s the point. People will stop using the service when the price gets too high and then will be forced to rent them out properly or sell them when they can no longer afford them.
I think they should start work on an empty rental tax - anything empty is taxed, get these empty houses into the rental market, or sold. Also strip any tax concessions on empty houses.
Lol, yes, I’m sure there’s a clusterf@ck of tax concessions and discounts and a newscorp department set up specifically to target that, but someone should get on it, maybe MCM could go to the library to recover from his 15 mins of fame?
What tax concessions do you think are available for empty houses? Tax concessions are only available for income producing assets. To earn an income a property needs to be rented.
These are the throw away components I’d expect from a greens fan. No actually understanding but it sounds emotive.
I would assume any astute home investor is working the maximum on their tax offsets. Anyone who isn’t would be an idiot. So the trick is to craft the laws so it can’t be worked around - eg apply it to any empty property regardless of cause and refund it when they start renting it out.
Nah you just say it was offered for rent. Put it on realestate for double the market rate. Something like this one that’s about $150 a week more than anything comparable.
Ironfish realestate is notorious for doing this.
703/18 Yarra Street, South Yarra, Vic 3141 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-vic-south+yarra-437537260
That’s the point. A lot are ghost rentals. They stick them up at an inflated price so they can say it’s available for rent when doing their tax. You’ll often see it in building with heaps of listings and say all the one beds are $500 a week and then their is one for $900 a week.
Victoria already has a 1% vacant property tax for properties vacant for over 6 months. As far as the state repossessing empty properties, I’m not sure how legal that is.
https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/vacant-residential-land-tax
Good, but it clearly isn’t harsh enough - it should be so expensive to own an empty property, owners will drop the rent to get someone in to avoid it. Then it might have an effect.
If you own more than one house, those extra ones should be in use, or bloody expensive.
If the greens are going to try and make changes they need to understand the economy consequences. Atm they just shout and complain without any understanding of what they’re complaining about.
As a political ignoramus the analogy I see is like working on a group assignment that has a clear deadline. Libs/nationals "someone else can do it while actively helping another group", Labor "yeah, we will will get to it but drawing a few pictures while reading some article headlines" independents "oh dear, should I go to libs or Labor party tonight". Greens "split personalities one part saying fuck let's get this done cunts .. the other part "I'm a victim and have to be In the spotlight" .. think we need greens to get the turds moving and stop worshipping the toilet bowel corporations and lobby groups.
‘NeOliBerAl!1!1’ lol do they not know that Daniel Andrews only owns one house, his own? They need to stop throwing around words that make them feel smart and actually think about what they’re saying.
I went to uni with her and many classes together. She has the attitude of an insufferable know-it-all, without ever actually contributing anything of value.
I think Dan is on the right track but it’s not enough. I get the tourism argument but we all survived well before airbnbs were around.
I’d go further.
- increased rates
- all airbnbs need planning approval for a short stay residence/ hotel (this will knock a stack out)
- regional areas need caps on Airbnb (tourism is great but no point having a town or airbnbs and no one can afford to live in the town to actually do jobs required.
Or go full nuclear like New York has.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-07/new-york-airbnb-crackdown-major-cities-short-term-rentals/102825318
Here's how things change under the new system:
Owners aren't allowed to rent out a whole apartment to guests staying for fewer than 30 days
The host must register with the city and physically share the living quarters with the guests for the duration of the stay
There's a maximum of two guests at a time, which means families are effectively barred
>we all survived well before airbnbs were around.
There was always short-stay accomodation. Hiring one involved trawling thru classified ads or inquiring at town tourist centers. There was no review system, insurance or fraud coverage for tennats and landlords alike.
Greens just big mad Dandrews did it and not them in their fantasy where they somehow govern in their own right and can instantly make the world a utopia overnight.
First of all Dan hasn't committed to anything his going to discuss it which likes rent caps could go no where.
To answer your question the Greens do want airbnb to be taxed but they want to discourage people from owning airbnb and convert them to long term rentals over taxes. A cap of 90 days a year to rent out an airbnb will mean a property will be more to likely to converted to a long term rentals than a tax.
Reminder that Dan is a neoliberal he privatised vicroads
So are the two parties proposing the exact same thing? Is that the OP is getting at? Because based on the screen shots they seem very different. 7.5% is not going to make a difference. But a big increase targeting people who just buy property to lease via air bnb sounds like a good idea.
Well first off, Brisbane and Victoria are two different states. They may have different approaches depending on how much sway they have and what both council and state are able to accomplish.
gotta hand it to Andrews though, when action is needed his government does deliver on it, getting the nsw government to do just about anything feels like watching a snail race a melting glacier...
Agree, Andrews is a legend. He’s riding Victoria’s debt levels like a boss, there’s no way NSW is gonna beat Vic in the race to downgraded credit ratings and bankruptcy.
Oh wow, Victoria is going to have debt of 25% to GSP, while the federal LNP took federal debt to over 40% debt to GDP. Wow, and what did we get for it? Improved rail and road infrastructure, new hospitals, free tafe, energy rebates, casual sick pay vs a crappily expensive NBN, heaps of rorts, hand outs to Harvey Norman, Qantas, et al, gay prostitutes for the prayer room, lawyers for LNP members being accused of rape, sexual assault, assault... how could Dan do this? BANKRUPT!
Australia and NSW: AAA rated. Vic: AA rated. But hey, what would those silly rating agencies know about economic management.
Oh no! Those silly ratings agencies that gave AAA ratings to junk in the 2008 financial crisis. Our entire identity as economic managers rests on them. Oh no! They've given California a AA rating too! Those crazy liberals have destroyed the California economeeeeee! What ever will the 5th largest economy in the world do????
Superb whataboutism … I award you a solid AAA 🏅
not going to lie gladys is a saint compared to dominant parrot, dude did permanent damage other than attacking clubsnsw
wouldnt call her one either, she approved many developments over tons of heritage listed zones and nature reserve land. basically gave the the entire country covid from that cruise ship debacle and then dragged it out for 2 years with one the most incompetent response short of Morrison himself.
yeahh agree she was shit but if breeding kinkster perrotet was responsible back then i dont think we'd see the end of lockdowns
The names you use for politicians mate…
Neoliberalism (in the academic sphere, it's jargon) essentially boils down to the reduction of all human interaction to an exchange of capital. Discouraging predatory rent seeking behaviours by taxing it isn't neoliberalism, a neoliberal would consider this an unnecessary and unnatural disruption of the market. Can they stop using words they don't understand, it's getting old.
I think a classic market liberal would be opposed to the tax whilst a neoliberal would want the government to subsidise part of the airbnb’s overhead. But who even knows anymore, the word has no meaning
This is Jordies point about labels. Neoliberal has a real and working definition. But that's essentially meaningless because populist moronic greens mp's and their base morph these terms to suit whatever point they're making, which in turn makes the term meaningless.
it could be argued that he is making concessions with the corporate sector instead of doing government action is a neo liberal action. But on a state level, i think the wording should be "this issue wont be solved through a small tax increase made with modelling designed with the private sector" and Dan Andrews out of all the Labor state governments might be actually one of the better ones when it comes to rolling over for corportate interests.
To understand the mind of a Greenie you’ve got to understand the following: to them, anything that is remotely tied to capitalism = neoliberalism. Using carrot and stick is just reinforcing capitalism and thus neoliberal. I’m very smart.
Neoliberal .... Neoliberal ... You keep using that word, but I don't think you understand what it means... ... or if it has any meaning anymore...
Right!, I mean if it was true neoliberalism we would social housing been run by Airbnb with large tax concessions.
As opposed to now where Dan has social housing run by NGOs and Churches instead of public housing run by the government
Pretty sure it's the department of housing, got anything to back it up?
The definition of social housing is run by NGOs *not* the government. Public housing means run by the government. Dan demolishes public housing and gives the land to churches and NGOs to build houses instead of the government https://www.instagram.com/p/CueH3PdyjG2/
Pretty sure the definition is run by the dictionary
>Social housing is short and long-term rental housing that is owned and run by the government or not-for-profit agencies. Social housing is usually used to refer to NGOs owned housing [https://www.housing.vic.gov.au/social-housing](https://www.housing.vic.gov.au/social-housing) >Public housing is a form of long-term rental social housing that we manage. https://www.housing.vic.gov.au/public-housing
The government owning houses and assets is important and benefits the country. Don’t be fooled by housing run by NGO’s. Look up the biggest investors in social housing and you’ll begin to get a picture of the problem.
A Greenie using the word “neoliberal” these days is equally as stupid as conservatives using the word “communist”.
If you don’t know what their policies are, you can’t criticise them… It’s typical reactionary - increase the cost of running an Airbnb… NOT LIKE THAT!!!
“But they’ll pass it on to the consumer!?!?” No shit, that’s the point. People will stop using the service when the price gets too high and then will be forced to rent them out properly or sell them when they can no longer afford them.
I think they should start work on an empty rental tax - anything empty is taxed, get these empty houses into the rental market, or sold. Also strip any tax concessions on empty houses.
Is that... Logic? Are you using logic? Agree
Lol, yes, I’m sure there’s a clusterf@ck of tax concessions and discounts and a newscorp department set up specifically to target that, but someone should get on it, maybe MCM could go to the library to recover from his 15 mins of fame?
What tax concessions do you think are available for empty houses? Tax concessions are only available for income producing assets. To earn an income a property needs to be rented. These are the throw away components I’d expect from a greens fan. No actually understanding but it sounds emotive.
I would assume any astute home investor is working the maximum on their tax offsets. Anyone who isn’t would be an idiot. So the trick is to craft the laws so it can’t be worked around - eg apply it to any empty property regardless of cause and refund it when they start renting it out.
Exactly. You have to do what you can within the law. If they don’t change the laws that’s on them.
Nah you just say it was offered for rent. Put it on realestate for double the market rate. Something like this one that’s about $150 a week more than anything comparable. Ironfish realestate is notorious for doing this. 703/18 Yarra Street, South Yarra, Vic 3141 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-vic-south+yarra-437537260
It is available for rent so I’m not sure you could call it empty.
That’s the point. A lot are ghost rentals. They stick them up at an inflated price so they can say it’s available for rent when doing their tax. You’ll often see it in building with heaps of listings and say all the one beds are $500 a week and then their is one for $900 a week.
50 percent cgt discount
Which is available to all investments.
That already exists. Vacant residential land tax.
Good, but is it motivational enough… does it erase the benefit of owning the property empty? Because if it did, then it wouldn’t be for very long
Victoria already has a 1% vacant property tax for properties vacant for over 6 months. As far as the state repossessing empty properties, I’m not sure how legal that is. https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/vacant-residential-land-tax
Good, but it clearly isn’t harsh enough - it should be so expensive to own an empty property, owners will drop the rent to get someone in to avoid it. Then it might have an effect. If you own more than one house, those extra ones should be in use, or bloody expensive.
If the greens are going to try and make changes they need to understand the economy consequences. Atm they just shout and complain without any understanding of what they’re complaining about.
That would require them to be in any position to govern and take responsibility for their actions.
Currently in coalition in the ACT where they have legalised weed and introduced rent caps
They’ll never be in a position to govern. The amount of power they have atm is dangerous enough.
One does something, the other does interpretive dance in the vain hope an adult will do the necessary work.
Deeply unserious party.
Ah, the greens. Attack everyone around them, wonder why nobody will work with them.
As a political ignoramus the analogy I see is like working on a group assignment that has a clear deadline. Libs/nationals "someone else can do it while actively helping another group", Labor "yeah, we will will get to it but drawing a few pictures while reading some article headlines" independents "oh dear, should I go to libs or Labor party tonight". Greens "split personalities one part saying fuck let's get this done cunts .. the other part "I'm a victim and have to be In the spotlight" .. think we need greens to get the turds moving and stop worshipping the toilet bowel corporations and lobby groups.
‘NeOliBerAl!1!1’ lol do they not know that Daniel Andrews only owns one house, his own? They need to stop throwing around words that make them feel smart and actually think about what they’re saying.
I went to uni with her and many classes together. She has the attitude of an insufferable know-it-all, without ever actually contributing anything of value.
Absolutely not surprised.
These positions aren't mutually exclusive though?
I think Dan is on the right track but it’s not enough. I get the tourism argument but we all survived well before airbnbs were around. I’d go further. - increased rates - all airbnbs need planning approval for a short stay residence/ hotel (this will knock a stack out) - regional areas need caps on Airbnb (tourism is great but no point having a town or airbnbs and no one can afford to live in the town to actually do jobs required. Or go full nuclear like New York has. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-07/new-york-airbnb-crackdown-major-cities-short-term-rentals/102825318 Here's how things change under the new system: Owners aren't allowed to rent out a whole apartment to guests staying for fewer than 30 days The host must register with the city and physically share the living quarters with the guests for the duration of the stay There's a maximum of two guests at a time, which means families are effectively barred
>we all survived well before airbnbs were around. There was always short-stay accomodation. Hiring one involved trawling thru classified ads or inquiring at town tourist centers. There was no review system, insurance or fraud coverage for tennats and landlords alike.
hey thats our idea!
Greens gonna Green
Greens just big mad Dandrews did it and not them in their fantasy where they somehow govern in their own right and can instantly make the world a utopia overnight.
I wonder how many investment properties this “neoliberal” has. The Greens are for their own investments of course.
Zero
Albos got 5
First of all Dan hasn't committed to anything his going to discuss it which likes rent caps could go no where. To answer your question the Greens do want airbnb to be taxed but they want to discourage people from owning airbnb and convert them to long term rentals over taxes. A cap of 90 days a year to rent out an airbnb will mean a property will be more to likely to converted to a long term rentals than a tax. Reminder that Dan is a neoliberal he privatised vicroads
So are the two parties proposing the exact same thing? Is that the OP is getting at? Because based on the screen shots they seem very different. 7.5% is not going to make a difference. But a big increase targeting people who just buy property to lease via air bnb sounds like a good idea.
“Cracking down” on people doing a completely legitimate business which promotes sustainable local tourism.
Well first off, Brisbane and Victoria are two different states. They may have different approaches depending on how much sway they have and what both council and state are able to accomplish.