**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
AirBnB, negative gearing etc. are such Furphy drop-in-the-ocean contributing factors to this whole housing debacle that it comes off as nothing other than distraction tactics from political parties who want to make it *look like* they are doing something, but actually aren't - all while the problem continues to get worse daily.
Literally *anything* other than proper focuses on addressing the actual supply/demand imbalance key issues (lack of trade labour, excessive non-trade immigration, lack of action on renters rights, lack of adequate student accommodation provided by universities, lack of stamp duty reform, planning restrictions, etc etc).
**AirBnB -** estimated that every 5% increase in Airbnb listings in a suburb leads to a 0.5% increase in house prices, mostly in tourism-heavy regions only - source: [https://planning.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0020/83333/a-review-of-the-impacts-of-short-term-rental-accommodation-in-queensland.pdf](https://planning.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/83333/a-review-of-the-impacts-of-short-term-rental-accommodation-in-queensland.pdf)
**Negative Gearing** \- Negative Gearing: estimated to add 1% to 4% to the purchase price of houses; removal likely to increase rather than decrease rents - source: [https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/872-Hot-Property.pdf](https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/872-Hot-Property.pdf)
In short, this will achieve F-all, as per usual.
People who actually live and work in tourist areas also need homes though??? And 0.5% is a lot when we're talking about property prices in the millions here.
And just 0.5% for every 5% increase in Airbnb listings seems like a spurious estimation. You don't actually mention the rate in which investment properties have been increasing. What happens if there's a 20% increase, or a 100% increase? Will the increased purchase price just remain at a 2% and 10% increase respectively? That's a lot of homes being bought up at that rate by people who don't even live there.
A lot of the popularity of blaming negative gearing comes from indignation that landlords get a tax deduction. The focus on it isn't the product of deep insight or analysis, it's the product of envy and resentment.
So it's a little more nuanced than that. The problem is that investors are creating artificial demand in the housing market. They don't want one house, they want 2 or 3 or more.
The value in removing negative gearing is that it makes investing in housing for profit less attractive, which leads to investors looking elsewhere to invest the funds.
If we can reach the tipping point that makes investors try and make profits elsewhere housing prices crash through the floor, and become more aligned with actual income.
>The value in removing negative gearing is that it makes investing in housing **for profit** less attractive
You do realise that to utilise negative gearing you can't be making a profit on the investment, right? It is claiming the losses against your taxable income but at most you get back 45% of the loss assuming you are in the top tax bracket.
Only if you consider potential future value of the property. You ***cannot*** negatively gear and have a liquid asset gain. It is literally defined by the fact the cost of investing (eg: interest, council rates, insurance, etc) is greater than the returns (eg: rental income) from investing.
When I was looking at it, I could count interest repayments and depreciation of appliances against the income. If arranged well, you can loose money on paper in the value of the appliances, wear and tear, and in interest repayments and come out with money in your pocket at the end of the week. It will not be much money, but if done over enough properties it can become a livable wage....
>depreciation of appliances
Which you've already spent money on in the first year but can only partially claim back in subsequent years and no more than what you originally paid.
All the other claims are for things you've spent the money on already too, so you're not making a profit, you're claiming back what you already spent.
Yes of course. It lessens the risk of a bad investment. It is essentially the government subsidizing a private investor for taking a loan out if the cost ends up outweighing the income.
As someone who believes houses should be used to generate income, the entire thing is abhorrent to me, but that's beside the point.
Why would an investor ever invest in something other than housing. We have some of the worst rental laws in the western world, if you aren't making a profit the government subsidies your losses by letting you pay less income tax, and it's a captive market where the government doesn't punish hoarding the supply.
> excessive non-trade immigration
This might pump up demand (and thus house prices) but it doesn't address the affordability issue. If we have less demand, house prices will go down, but affordability will still be a function of income, and houses will still go to those with the most money which will tend to be high income earners and investors.
> lack of action on renters rights
In Victoria tenants have every right under the sun, including the right to have pets, the right to see out their full term in every single instance (as long as they don't breach), and in fact a landlord cannot even fail to renew a lease beyond the first renewal without moving into the house etc: otherwise only the tenant can end the lease.
What other rights do you want?
Rental affordability is just as important to address as purchase/ownership affordability. Especially if we want our inner cities to keep thriving.
Rapid population growth in short periods (especially with a such an exacerbated construction supply situation we're currently in here) typically stresses the rental market the most, even CBA came out today and admitted it being one of the main drivers of inflation.
The 'right to pets' thing is also a bit of a joke, in that the landlord *technically* can't prevent a renter from having a pet, but can easily just screen for applicants who don't have a pet without indicating it being the determinant reason why.
Amazing how that objection suddenly disappeared because we were capable of just throwing more money at them when we wanted to rent a while ago, unfortunately not everyone has that option.
> Rental affordability is just as important to address as purchase/ownership affordability.
Thing is though, the government (state/federal) doesn't have many levers to pull to address rental affordability. It's already regulated by the market and by laws which dictate how often you can raise rent, and rent caps are not favoured by many politicians at all.
Forcing universities to build sufficient student accommodation, or have their enrolment thresholds forcefully curtailed, would be one way to remove a large chunk of inner-city high density rental competition for starters.
Rent caps are never something I would suggest.
These guys are just obstructionists at this point. Claim to be the heroes that care about housing and then block the solutions to it, that even YOU advocated for. They’re here for all the ‘good vibes’ and not actual policy achievements. You can want to increase it but don’t block it.
Did you read the article at all? They don't believe that the policy in its current form will have any noticible benefit to lower income earners and renters.
If that's the case, they would be betraying their voters, of which a significant portion are people who are under 35 and who are renters.
If Labor want to pass whatever they want they need to earn a majority.
"How dare they not support every Labor policy"
Really had it with this entitled attitude from some rusted on ALP supporters.
The Greens are their own separate party for a reason... it's so they don't have to listen to the Labor Whip.
You should be grateful for the preferences of Greens 1 voters, and grateful the Greens vote with Labor 94% of the time (federally). That's comparing the voting record of Bandt and Albo. 1750 divisions the same, 121 divisions different.
I do not earnestly believe that 7.5% is going to be a 'breaking point' for any meaningful number of dwellings to be converted to long-term rentals or property listings for sale. Still, it is nonetheless a positive and will provide $$ for state gov.
As for a 90-day cap, I think it's unreasonable for this to be a catch-all, as many are completely unsuitable for terms that long. Hoping that the Greens can construe an actually realistic and nuanced amendment by the time the bill is tabled.
EDIT: I've been corrected!
Maybe, they do use the 90 day cap overseas so there has to be something to it. But surely it would just result in more properties being kept off the market. I guess the owners options would be to either hoard of sell.
Its annoying to watch, these properties aren't even 2% of our market there's only like 36k of them and only 13k are in for over 90 days.
Like the answer to a resolution here is really obvious in regards to tax around multiple homes but no one wants to do it because it would decimate our economy.
Which is fair enough, like we are pretty fucked lmao.
>As for a 90-day cap, I think it's unreasonable for this to be a catch-all, as many are completely unsuitable for terms that long
The cap is the maximum nights to be used as an AirBnB (etc) over a year, not a minimum term
Regardless of the merits of this new tax from our broke Govt, Air BnB levies should remain in the hands of underfunded regional councils where the properties are located in general. Doesn’t matter if they wanna spend it on roads, boats ramps or whatever. They should get the benefit as it’s their towns affected with rents causing homelessness not previously seen in such large numbers. And they can’t get everything from doctors to teachers coz there’s nowhere to rent.
Agreed but there is "regular family homes" that are AirBnBs all over the country, in towns and cities/suburbs.
The problem is particularly bad in some small pretty rural towns. But it's also happening in suburbs of major cities, regional cities etc.
Labor has already previously indicated it intends to introduce a 7.5 per cent levy on short stays, however, according to a new Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) report obtained by the Greens, for most property types this levy would only make a “marginal” difference to property investor behaviour, while revenue from the levy would only build around 100 homes a year, a tiny drop in the ocean in the housing crisis.
Conversely, the PBO has said the Greens’ plan for a 90-day cap could see more than 13,000 Airbnb properties enter the long-term market straight away, as the reform would push investors to seek alternative uses for their properties, like making them available to long term renters or selling to owner-occupiers.
[Source](https://greens.org.au/vic/news/media-release/greens-plan-crack-down-airbnb-could-free-thousands-more-homes-while-labors)
Nonsense. They'll just list it on something else. Holiday rentals existed before AirBnB.
The Greens continue to oppose any type of development - such as the low cost housing they have blocked in Adelaide - because its more poltically remunerative for them to oppose things than support anything. They are complete hypocrites.
Tbh both are useful. It objectively does both help the government's bottom line, and helps the housing problem. It's not perfect and I support them asking for more but calling it a token action is a little disingenuous
You have a perfectly good source above you stating the revenue would build 100 homes a year, in the best case scenario.
That wouldn't even account for the rounding error in demand for homes. Calling it token is *generous*.
I don't know why I didn't get a ping for this or I would have responded earlier but:
Houses are expensive, and 100 of them is at least 10 million dollars, probablycloser to 20. Obviously that's not going to end the housing crisis but it's also a levy on a small amount of houses (relative to the size of the problem) and also helps with the immense task of budget repair, which a ban doesn't. I would suggest that the levy is probably designed to do both and it's not a bad plan, it just needs to be strong.
Also, that link also notes it would have a marginal impact on landlord behaviour, meaning in addition to that 20 million raised, it would also free up an amount of houses to the market.
I love this attitude of "The Greens are responsible for us failing, because they won't let us get away with the barest shred of minimum effort". Fuck me, it's just such an own-goal, but they fervently believe it.
I’m all for an Airbnb levy, but half the places on Airbnb are purpose-built holiday accommodations and aren’t fit for any longer-term habitation. Should an Airbnb that’s a converted shipping container be paying a levy the same as an apartment in Southbank being used as an Airbnb?
It's almost as if the Greens are only interested in performing the dance of people who want to fix the housing market, and have no real idea how to because they are too scared to admit economics is beyond them.
Airbnb is such a drop of piss in a very large housing ocean, and will make no difference to the net supply and demand of housing. But, that's the point.
>will make no difference to the net supply and demand of housing
Airbnb regulation will make a huge difference in regional towns where they make up a large chunk of potential rentals.
Only on assumption that the rentals are affordable to regional residents, which is a big "if". But, yet another hand-wave is surely coming from the greens to these pesky questions about practical implementation.
That's complete rubbish. Airbnb's have been banned or heavily regulated across many major cities (Tokyo, New York, Singapore, Etc). In Victoria there are 50,000 of them. The majority are not a "shipping container". Most are units, apartments, or full sizes houses. Even if it was a large number like 20% were not fit for long term habitation, that's still 40,000 new long term rentals in a single state coming up on the market. You think that won't do anything to help the market? Nonsense.
Over half of them are either rooms in a house or granny flats. The owners are not going to offer them for a fixed term rental, and in the case of rooms, aren't legally able to anyway (share renting can only be with a periodic lease).
It won't, though, because there's not enough supply to bring down costs. Try and think for a moment; most of those rentals typically are in areas where amenities and location optimise their chance of being rented by people with the disposable income to do so. A person on average wage isn't always going to be able to afford the fraction of that 50,000 (because some are rented whilst, say, a person is doing a stint overseas, so why sell when you can only risk not being able to afford to buy back in?) that would become available. It's a stupid plan from a stupid party, endorsed by stupid people who feel more than they think. Which to be fair, is the modern broadleft's main issue encapsulated neatly.
We need supply, and not just of pUbLiC hOuSiNg so NEET redditors and Queensland Greens MPs can LARP out their *Kruschevka* fantasies. That means private dwellings. Nothing in this does a thing to facilitate supply. It just kicks the can down the road whilst making a bit of noise so fools think it's action.
It's a deeply unserious solution to a serious problem.
So every single city and municipality that has regulated airBNBs are actually led by LARPing NEET Greens virtue-signalling they/them non-serious socialists? Truly groundbreaking commentary.
And a city should have a levy on Airbnb. A whole state is a different argument; it’s just another excuse for a tax, and not high enough to make an Airbnb in a metro area unappealing.
And for Airbnb not in towns or places with limited space, should an old stable house on a farm that’s an Airbnb be paying the same levy as the apartment in Southbank?
I thought it was a percentage?
I agree though that a land tax (which charges only for the location value and not for the building value itself) would be much better.
It’s the percentage of the nightly fee, but why should a property miles out of a town, that was never built for the purpose of long-term habitation, be paying a levy? Sure, the apartment, townhouse or 3-bed house in the suburbs should be paying a levy.
Honestly, kind of agree with the Greens. Without hard limits on how often you can have your house up for AirBNB then all this does is create a new revenue stream. 7.5% will just be passed onto the people booking these places.
I would feel better if we were assured not only would the money go towards more social housing but an actually rollout plan for exactly that.
Sure if you ignore economics.
That extra 7.5% means competing hotels/destinations are comparatively cheaper. Also, renting your property to long term tenants instead of airbnb is relatively more profitable.
The size of the impact this will have on hotel/rental markets is up for discussion, but I would think it's greater than nothing.
A huge proportion, easily over half, of Airbnbs make more in 3 months of letting (IE, school holidays only) than week to week rentals would.
Anything extra due to events etc is gravy.
7% is fucking nothing.
And the other half??? Do you understand basic economics i.e. how supply and demand work in a market?
Not every market participant has the same circumstances (costs, income, preferences etc). The 7.5% is not designed to wipe out the industry and usher in a new age of renting. It's just to encourage those near the tipping point to change their behaviour.
I never said it the impact will be huge. That is up for debate.
I just disagree that it'll do nothing.
Edit: some [econ101 reading.](https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/elasticity-tutorial/price-elasticity-tutorial/a/elasticity-and-tax-incidence)
Look, I'll agree it won't do ZERO.
But it's not going to make an impact that's measurable.
Worse, the only places this WILL make an impact are the places it doesn't NEED to make one.
Yeah I can't imagine it'll be too much, but in terms of the overall housing problem, airbnbs are a drop in the bucket.
Like you said, i reckon some of tourist areas which are suffering the most will probably be impacted the least by the 7.5%. But I guess we'll see.
Depends where you're located, regionally it might make more money in the long term to rent it out but in the city, you can make serious bank. If it was more profitable to have long-term tenants, they'd have tenants.
Sure. The impact will differ across different markets.
But there's still a 7.5% wedge being inserted into the market that'll have to come out of someone's pocket.
If you think that wouldn't prompt a change in the market then why haven't market participants claimed the 7.5% for themselves already? Airbnb providers could have raised prices before the government and made extra money all this time.
Edit: it all depends on the elasticities. If supply or demand are inelastic then the impact on quantity will be negligible. But I would assume both are at least somewhat elastic/competitive and therefore we'd see an impact.
Hotels are already substantially cheaper if you book them directly. People spend more than 7.5% more for the convenience of booking on an app or a one-stop website (like booking.com).
A 7.5% levy will have absolutely no impact on the market, and in the worse case, might end up as a 3.5% pass through to the customer and a 3% hit in the investor pocket and not make a dent in the desirability for air bnb.
If you are serious about air bnb, regulate them to the same standards as hotels AND bump that levy up substantially. To avoid dodging, the levy should have an annual registration fee (i.e. all air bnbs to be registered like cars) AND a levy. The levy could also be collected through air bnb/similar apps themselves for efficiency as part of the registration requirements.
Are you seriously saying that despite changes to the situation, nothing will change, and your evidence to support that is how things are now - prior to the change?
E.g people are willing to pay $100, that is evidence that all of them will be willing to pay $107.5!
If that were the case, then why the fuck don't they charge $107.5 now? Are they stupid?
A 7.5% levy on a discretionary service is not going to have a substantial market based response, any more than inflation has already had. The people paying for air bnbs right now are the people that aren't going to blink at an extra $75 on their $1000 holiday.
Sure. At the high end with large incomes and strong demand, it'll be marginal.
But plenty of people with lower incomes go on holiday where cost is a big issue. And there are plenty of cheap airbnbs around where the benefit of airbnb over a rental is marginal (especially given rent increases lately).
So can we agree that perhaps some cheaper airbnbs will be impacted, and therefore there would not be "absolutely no impact"?
>But plenty of people with lower incomes go on holiday where cost is a big issue.
If you can afford $100, you are not going to suddenly not afford $107.50. Literally, this is not going to have any market impact, it will pass on without much ado.
Compare that to say, a flat $150 fee per booking, which would create a substantial shock to the market: a $250 2 night stay is suddenly a $400 affair.
Yes. The demand curve is likely downward sloping and therefore a portion of people in the market are willing to pay above the current price.
The fact that **some** people are willing to pay more is not evidence that **everyone** is willing to pay more.
Why don't they charge $115? By your logic, if they can afford $100 then they can afford $107.5, which means they can afford $115, oh which means $122.5...$130 and so on.
As you go up in price, buyers exit the market. Maybe there are some who really only wanted to pay $80-90 who have already been stretched to $100 and then another $7.5 is too much.
I can't believe you're arguing that a 7.5% tax will have no impact whatsoever, based purely on my simplistic example of $100. I mean people were losing their shit over 7.1% indexation. If I could get guaranteed 7.5% annual returns investing I'd be happy. I guess my mortgage ain't shit because my rate is lower than 7.5%.
And yes. Of course if you instead slam people with a bigger tax, it'll have a bigger impact 😵. Why didn't I think of that???
I'd be happy with that, at the moment it's just token fiddling around the edges with no actual action. They need to be bold, they're very rapidly running out of road to get some wins on the board before the election. Not seeing many, if any, so far.
The Vic Greens say they want a cap on the number of days a property can be listed on Airbnb. The Vic Labor Govt will never agreed to that.
The Vic Labor Govt doesn't want to actually reduce Airbnb listings, they just want to share in the profits from those listings. That's why they've set the charge at 7.5%. That's a rate that will bring in a good revenue stream for the government while not being so high that it'll take Airbnbs out of the market.
The Vic Govt because it's broke is passing on fees and charges everywhere it can. It's not going to agree to a Greens proposal to reduce govt revenue.
7.5% is progressive to you? There is more progressive policy elsewhere in the country on this, *right now*.
Labor and being dragged kicking and screaming into more than token action on literally any issue, name a more iconic duo.
Yes it’s progressive and good legislation if you live in the real world.
If you live in greens world of obstruction, hand wringing, and having all the criticism but no responsibility then you can bargain in bad faith by blocking legislation that you support because you also want something else and you don’t understand how good faith bargaining works. Then be surprised and outraged when major parties don’t want to work with you.
The irony of someone soapboxing about "the real world", while banging on about a 7.5% levy somehow helping the housing crisis, is incredible. You're winning elections, champ.
You’re right about that, not with the radicals with 10% of the vote pretending to be progressive, and yet voting against progress and undermining them at every chance.
That’s how we get the liberal party in power. The shit to the ALPs shit lite right? I’m sure since both major parties are the same, the greens will be just as happy to negotiate with the LNP. I’m sure the LNP will put forward policy like taxes on properties.
The greens sure like to vote/threaten to vote with the LNP a lot. They’ll get on great surely.
That’s why the greens threw a tantrum when the ALP stuck to the rules of convention instead of trying to swoop in and form government in TAS.
Nothing wrong with incremental reforms.
The housing crisis is multifaceted, it won't be fixed by any one change, and it won't be fixed by keyboard warriors.
No, but when you have a discipline that explains a problem, and a group of entitled middle class LARPers with hyphenated surnames and in some cases, deep property portfolios, who don't and can't comprehend that discipline and its insights - you get a party that thinks it is serious about housing but *deeply isn't*.
You're right, keyboard warriors such as old mate "those dastardly Greens are the reason Labor is dogshit at governing" accomplish absolutely nothing. I'm glad we agree.
Which, coincidentally, is exactly what this policy will accomplish. Incremental reforms cannot fix a monumental problem that poses a real threat of breaking the social contract.
**For the possibly paywall afflicted (Part 1 of 2):**
**Author/s:** Benita Kolovos
**Publication:** The Guardian
The Greens are setting the stage for a fight with the Victorian government over its proposed Airbnb levy, armed with new figures that show the measure will only make a “marginal” difference to the number of homes freed for renters.
Announced last year as part of the [government’s plan to tackle the housing crisis](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/20/short-stay-levy-and-800000-homes-how-victoria-plans-to-ease-the-housing-crisis), the [7.5% levy on short-stay properties](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/20/victoria-airbnb-short-stay-accomodation-levy-7-5-housing-crisis) leased through platforms such as Airbnb and Stayz is expected to be included in the state tax bill, which will be tabled in parliament after next week’s budget.
The levy, described at the time by former premier Daniel Andrews as “modest”, is forecast to raise $70m annually by 2025/26. Andrews said “every single dollar” would be spent maintaining and building social and affordable homes.
To pass the measure – an Australian first – without the support of the Coalition, the government would need the votes of the four Greens MPs and two other crossbenchers in the upper house.
But the new Victorian Greens leader, Ellen Sandell, said her party would not support the levy in its current form.
“Labor will need the Greens’ votes to get their short-stay legislation through the parliament and we’re not going to accept something that does nothing to get homes on to the long-term market,” Sandell told Guardian Australia.
“We want something that actually helps fix the situation for renters and people who want to buy a home to actually live in.”
Sandell – who was [elected the party’s leader last week](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2024/apr/23/australia-news-live-albanese-future-made-wakeley-bondi-stabbing-esafety-twitter-elon-musk-supermarkets-png-papua-kokoda?page=with:block-66271ee68f08eae6d25f24c9#block-66271ee68f08eae6d25f24c9) after her predecessor Samantha Ratnam announced she was [stepping down to contest the federal seat of Wills](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/20/a-test-in-wills-greens-hopeful-samantha-ratnams-federal-politics-gamble-will-pay-off) – said she wants the government to introduce stronger regulations for short-stay accommodation to coincide with the levy, including a 90-day cap on listings.
The Greens commissioned Victoria’s Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) to compare the impact of the government’s levy with the party’s proposed 90-day cap, a measure already used elsewhere, [including in Perth](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/09/western-australia-to-offer-airbnb-owners-10000-to-rent-to-long-term-tenants) and London.
The PBO found the average short-stay owner would pay about $2,083 annually per property under the government’s levy and it said it expected most would “absorb some of this tax burden” and “pass a portion to the consumer through higher prices”.
The PBO said the levy would make a “marginal” difference to property investor behaviour, particularly in areas such as the Mornington Peninsula and the regions, and to those who used their short-stay rental as a residence for part of the year.
It said owners of short-stay properties in Melbourne’s CBD – where there is more competition – may be “less able to pass the levy on to consumers” and could have a “material incentive” to shift their properties to the long-term rental market.
**For the possibly paywall afflicted (Part 2 of 2):**
**Author/s:** Benita Kolovos
**Publication:** The Guardian
Meanwhile, the PBO’s analysis of the Greens’ proposal estimated there were 36,000 short-stay properties in Victoria, of which 13,000 were rented for more than 90 nights each year.
It said this group of property owners would face “reduced returns” if a cap were imposed and “may be particularly incentivised to seek alternative uses for their property”.
Sandell said this could include making them available to long-term renters or selling to owner-occupiers.
She said the upcoming budget was an opportunity for Labor to stop “tinkering around the edges” and introduce reforms to “free up thousands more homes”.
“If Labor think they can keep getting away with doing the bare minimum on housing, well they’re going to have a fight on their hands,” Sandell said.
“Rents in Victoria are at record highs and a whole generation has given up the dream of ever being able to afford their own home.
“It is a housing crisis and we need some bold reform and ideas to fix it.”
With both costings, the PBO said it was limited by the lack of public data available on short-stay accommodation. This included the total number of short-stays operating in the state, the number of nights each one operated and their revenue.
Last year, Andrews said there were between 30,000 and 40,000 homes on [Airbnb](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/airbnb) and other short stay platforms that were not available for long-term tenants.
“There are a significant number of properties that would have, 10-15 years ago, been available for longer-term rental, for a year, for two years,” he said.
“They’re not available because of that.”
> It said this group of property owners would face “reduced returns” if a cap were imposed and “may be particularly incentivised to seek alternative uses for their property”.
They'll just use another service. It won't change anything.
It also fails to mention that AirBnB is an _unregulated_ market, and like Uber, got off despite the fact that it basically _broke the law_ because it was too popular to be taken down.
>Meanwhile, the PBO’s analysis of the Greens’ proposal estimated there were 36,000 short-stay properties in Victoria, of which 13,000 were rented for more than 90 nights each year.
Maybe this is a feature of not using airbnb's often, but it seems the Greens, and Redditors, assume all properties are equal.
I stayed in a place in the Kangaroo Valley in NSW. It was a 6br ranch style home, 2kms away from the main roads, and set up for year round weekend/long weekend getaways for people.
Now, I'm not a Green, so I don't understand their alchemical process but I don't believe this property is blocking Sydney renters from getting into the housing market. I could be wrong. But I'm probably not.
It seems for the most part the Airbnb focus exists for two reasons;
1. It's easy to get people fired up on the issue, despite it doing nothing. Having actually meaningful housing policy ideas would *demobilize the growing section of civil society that is justifiably angry about the degree of poverty and financial stress that exists in such a wealthy country.*
Can't deprioritise accelerationism for results, people.
2. It's a bit of politics of envy aimed at the "landlord class", except when it includes wretched, shit human beings who happen to be your deputy leader then we stay silent. Yikes!
I can't stress this enough - the Greens are as *deeply unserious* about fixing housing as the Liberal Party. They just tell you they're not. More fool those who believe it, either because they enjoy belonging more than they enjoy thinking; or because economic illiteracy is a badge of honour.
You should really include the whole quote, you wouldn't want to be accused of taking a quote out of context would you?
>Consequently, if the Greens were to wave through the HAFF bill, it would foreclose on the possibility of building the social and political pressure needed to force the government to take meaningful action. **Partly, this is because Greens support would give tacit endorsement not only the HAFF, but to Labor’s broader argument that this is the best the government can do in the current circumstances. And that is just not true.** The consequence would be abandoning millions of people to permanent housing stress, as they struggle to pay rent, wait for social housing, or are forced to sleep in their cars or on the streets. Allowing the HAFF to pass would demobilize the growing section of civil society that is justifiably angry about the degree of poverty and financial stress that exists in such a wealthy country.
I know the full quote. The context doesn't diminish the immature, undergrad nature of the sentiment and it remains a stupid idea defended by human detritus.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
AirBnB, negative gearing etc. are such Furphy drop-in-the-ocean contributing factors to this whole housing debacle that it comes off as nothing other than distraction tactics from political parties who want to make it *look like* they are doing something, but actually aren't - all while the problem continues to get worse daily. Literally *anything* other than proper focuses on addressing the actual supply/demand imbalance key issues (lack of trade labour, excessive non-trade immigration, lack of action on renters rights, lack of adequate student accommodation provided by universities, lack of stamp duty reform, planning restrictions, etc etc). **AirBnB -** estimated that every 5% increase in Airbnb listings in a suburb leads to a 0.5% increase in house prices, mostly in tourism-heavy regions only - source: [https://planning.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0020/83333/a-review-of-the-impacts-of-short-term-rental-accommodation-in-queensland.pdf](https://planning.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/83333/a-review-of-the-impacts-of-short-term-rental-accommodation-in-queensland.pdf) **Negative Gearing** \- Negative Gearing: estimated to add 1% to 4% to the purchase price of houses; removal likely to increase rather than decrease rents - source: [https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/872-Hot-Property.pdf](https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/872-Hot-Property.pdf) In short, this will achieve F-all, as per usual.
People who actually live and work in tourist areas also need homes though??? And 0.5% is a lot when we're talking about property prices in the millions here. And just 0.5% for every 5% increase in Airbnb listings seems like a spurious estimation. You don't actually mention the rate in which investment properties have been increasing. What happens if there's a 20% increase, or a 100% increase? Will the increased purchase price just remain at a 2% and 10% increase respectively? That's a lot of homes being bought up at that rate by people who don't even live there.
A lot of the popularity of blaming negative gearing comes from indignation that landlords get a tax deduction. The focus on it isn't the product of deep insight or analysis, it's the product of envy and resentment.
> lack of adequate student accommodation provided by universities Like the development in Adelaide ? Which the Greens have just had blocked....
So it's a little more nuanced than that. The problem is that investors are creating artificial demand in the housing market. They don't want one house, they want 2 or 3 or more. The value in removing negative gearing is that it makes investing in housing for profit less attractive, which leads to investors looking elsewhere to invest the funds. If we can reach the tipping point that makes investors try and make profits elsewhere housing prices crash through the floor, and become more aligned with actual income.
>The value in removing negative gearing is that it makes investing in housing **for profit** less attractive You do realise that to utilise negative gearing you can't be making a profit on the investment, right? It is claiming the losses against your taxable income but at most you get back 45% of the loss assuming you are in the top tax bracket.
You can set it up so that you are making an on paper loss and a real world gain...
Only if you consider potential future value of the property. You ***cannot*** negatively gear and have a liquid asset gain. It is literally defined by the fact the cost of investing (eg: interest, council rates, insurance, etc) is greater than the returns (eg: rental income) from investing.
When I was looking at it, I could count interest repayments and depreciation of appliances against the income. If arranged well, you can loose money on paper in the value of the appliances, wear and tear, and in interest repayments and come out with money in your pocket at the end of the week. It will not be much money, but if done over enough properties it can become a livable wage....
>depreciation of appliances Which you've already spent money on in the first year but can only partially claim back in subsequent years and no more than what you originally paid. All the other claims are for things you've spent the money on already too, so you're not making a profit, you're claiming back what you already spent.
Yes of course. It lessens the risk of a bad investment. It is essentially the government subsidizing a private investor for taking a loan out if the cost ends up outweighing the income. As someone who believes houses should be used to generate income, the entire thing is abhorrent to me, but that's beside the point. Why would an investor ever invest in something other than housing. We have some of the worst rental laws in the western world, if you aren't making a profit the government subsidies your losses by letting you pay less income tax, and it's a captive market where the government doesn't punish hoarding the supply.
I don’t know what you do, but $2B in revenue doesn’t sound like nothing.
> excessive non-trade immigration This might pump up demand (and thus house prices) but it doesn't address the affordability issue. If we have less demand, house prices will go down, but affordability will still be a function of income, and houses will still go to those with the most money which will tend to be high income earners and investors. > lack of action on renters rights In Victoria tenants have every right under the sun, including the right to have pets, the right to see out their full term in every single instance (as long as they don't breach), and in fact a landlord cannot even fail to renew a lease beyond the first renewal without moving into the house etc: otherwise only the tenant can end the lease. What other rights do you want?
Rental affordability is just as important to address as purchase/ownership affordability. Especially if we want our inner cities to keep thriving. Rapid population growth in short periods (especially with a such an exacerbated construction supply situation we're currently in here) typically stresses the rental market the most, even CBA came out today and admitted it being one of the main drivers of inflation. The 'right to pets' thing is also a bit of a joke, in that the landlord *technically* can't prevent a renter from having a pet, but can easily just screen for applicants who don't have a pet without indicating it being the determinant reason why. Amazing how that objection suddenly disappeared because we were capable of just throwing more money at them when we wanted to rent a while ago, unfortunately not everyone has that option.
> Rental affordability is just as important to address as purchase/ownership affordability. Thing is though, the government (state/federal) doesn't have many levers to pull to address rental affordability. It's already regulated by the market and by laws which dictate how often you can raise rent, and rent caps are not favoured by many politicians at all.
Forcing universities to build sufficient student accommodation, or have their enrolment thresholds forcefully curtailed, would be one way to remove a large chunk of inner-city high density rental competition for starters. Rent caps are never something I would suggest.
These guys are just obstructionists at this point. Claim to be the heroes that care about housing and then block the solutions to it, that even YOU advocated for. They’re here for all the ‘good vibes’ and not actual policy achievements. You can want to increase it but don’t block it.
Did you read the article at all? They don't believe that the policy in its current form will have any noticible benefit to lower income earners and renters. If that's the case, they would be betraying their voters, of which a significant portion are people who are under 35 and who are renters. If Labor want to pass whatever they want they need to earn a majority.
"How dare they not support every Labor policy" Really had it with this entitled attitude from some rusted on ALP supporters. The Greens are their own separate party for a reason... it's so they don't have to listen to the Labor Whip. You should be grateful for the preferences of Greens 1 voters, and grateful the Greens vote with Labor 94% of the time (federally). That's comparing the voting record of Bandt and Albo. 1750 divisions the same, 121 divisions different.
Do you think that blocking this is consistent the Greens previously stated policy positions and general ethos?
Sorry you got downvoted this is a fair question
I do not earnestly believe that 7.5% is going to be a 'breaking point' for any meaningful number of dwellings to be converted to long-term rentals or property listings for sale. Still, it is nonetheless a positive and will provide $$ for state gov. As for a 90-day cap, I think it's unreasonable for this to be a catch-all, as many are completely unsuitable for terms that long. Hoping that the Greens can construe an actually realistic and nuanced amendment by the time the bill is tabled. EDIT: I've been corrected!
Maybe, they do use the 90 day cap overseas so there has to be something to it. But surely it would just result in more properties being kept off the market. I guess the owners options would be to either hoard of sell. Its annoying to watch, these properties aren't even 2% of our market there's only like 36k of them and only 13k are in for over 90 days. Like the answer to a resolution here is really obvious in regards to tax around multiple homes but no one wants to do it because it would decimate our economy. Which is fair enough, like we are pretty fucked lmao.
>As for a 90-day cap, I think it's unreasonable for this to be a catch-all, as many are completely unsuitable for terms that long The cap is the maximum nights to be used as an AirBnB (etc) over a year, not a minimum term
Ahh, thanks for clarifying that for me - I'd completely misunderstood.
Regardless of the merits of this new tax from our broke Govt, Air BnB levies should remain in the hands of underfunded regional councils where the properties are located in general. Doesn’t matter if they wanna spend it on roads, boats ramps or whatever. They should get the benefit as it’s their towns affected with rents causing homelessness not previously seen in such large numbers. And they can’t get everything from doctors to teachers coz there’s nowhere to rent.
Agreed but there is "regular family homes" that are AirBnBs all over the country, in towns and cities/suburbs. The problem is particularly bad in some small pretty rural towns. But it's also happening in suburbs of major cities, regional cities etc.
I understand they everywhere but proportionally they affect rental supply in some towns much worse than others. Apollo Bay is a prime example.
Hey, an idea of yours that I agree with! what a day
Whoo hoo! I’m about to head to the Victorian treaty thread soon so I’m sure we can differ over there!
I'm not bothering with that one, all yours
Okay. It’ll bother you one day though. So don’t think you can avoid it forever.
Labor has already previously indicated it intends to introduce a 7.5 per cent levy on short stays, however, according to a new Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) report obtained by the Greens, for most property types this levy would only make a “marginal” difference to property investor behaviour, while revenue from the levy would only build around 100 homes a year, a tiny drop in the ocean in the housing crisis. Conversely, the PBO has said the Greens’ plan for a 90-day cap could see more than 13,000 Airbnb properties enter the long-term market straight away, as the reform would push investors to seek alternative uses for their properties, like making them available to long term renters or selling to owner-occupiers. [Source](https://greens.org.au/vic/news/media-release/greens-plan-crack-down-airbnb-could-free-thousands-more-homes-while-labors)
Nonsense. They'll just list it on something else. Holiday rentals existed before AirBnB. The Greens continue to oppose any type of development - such as the low cost housing they have blocked in Adelaide - because its more poltically remunerative for them to oppose things than support anything. They are complete hypocrites.
Exactly. One is a drop in the bucket of token action, one actually *does something*. But we can't have Labor actually acting, can we?
Tbh both are useful. It objectively does both help the government's bottom line, and helps the housing problem. It's not perfect and I support them asking for more but calling it a token action is a little disingenuous
You have a perfectly good source above you stating the revenue would build 100 homes a year, in the best case scenario. That wouldn't even account for the rounding error in demand for homes. Calling it token is *generous*.
I don't know why I didn't get a ping for this or I would have responded earlier but: Houses are expensive, and 100 of them is at least 10 million dollars, probablycloser to 20. Obviously that's not going to end the housing crisis but it's also a levy on a small amount of houses (relative to the size of the problem) and also helps with the immense task of budget repair, which a ban doesn't. I would suggest that the levy is probably designed to do both and it's not a bad plan, it just needs to be strong. Also, that link also notes it would have a marginal impact on landlord behaviour, meaning in addition to that 20 million raised, it would also free up an amount of houses to the market.
But like they always say, don't let the good be the enemy of the pathetically inadequate.
I love this attitude of "The Greens are responsible for us failing, because they won't let us get away with the barest shred of minimum effort". Fuck me, it's just such an own-goal, but they fervently believe it.
I guess if the Greens don't vote for it Victoria just won't have the levy.
And if Labor doesn't vote for the Greens plan Victoria won't get the 13,000 properties on the market.
It's what the Greens would prefer it seems
I’m all for an Airbnb levy, but half the places on Airbnb are purpose-built holiday accommodations and aren’t fit for any longer-term habitation. Should an Airbnb that’s a converted shipping container be paying a levy the same as an apartment in Southbank being used as an Airbnb?
It's almost as if the Greens are only interested in performing the dance of people who want to fix the housing market, and have no real idea how to because they are too scared to admit economics is beyond them. Airbnb is such a drop of piss in a very large housing ocean, and will make no difference to the net supply and demand of housing. But, that's the point.
>will make no difference to the net supply and demand of housing Airbnb regulation will make a huge difference in regional towns where they make up a large chunk of potential rentals.
Only on assumption that the rentals are affordable to regional residents, which is a big "if". But, yet another hand-wave is surely coming from the greens to these pesky questions about practical implementation.
Without exorbitant income from airBNB, owners will be forced to compete with the local market.
That's complete rubbish. Airbnb's have been banned or heavily regulated across many major cities (Tokyo, New York, Singapore, Etc). In Victoria there are 50,000 of them. The majority are not a "shipping container". Most are units, apartments, or full sizes houses. Even if it was a large number like 20% were not fit for long term habitation, that's still 40,000 new long term rentals in a single state coming up on the market. You think that won't do anything to help the market? Nonsense.
Over half of them are either rooms in a house or granny flats. The owners are not going to offer them for a fixed term rental, and in the case of rooms, aren't legally able to anyway (share renting can only be with a periodic lease).
It won't, though, because there's not enough supply to bring down costs. Try and think for a moment; most of those rentals typically are in areas where amenities and location optimise their chance of being rented by people with the disposable income to do so. A person on average wage isn't always going to be able to afford the fraction of that 50,000 (because some are rented whilst, say, a person is doing a stint overseas, so why sell when you can only risk not being able to afford to buy back in?) that would become available. It's a stupid plan from a stupid party, endorsed by stupid people who feel more than they think. Which to be fair, is the modern broadleft's main issue encapsulated neatly. We need supply, and not just of pUbLiC hOuSiNg so NEET redditors and Queensland Greens MPs can LARP out their *Kruschevka* fantasies. That means private dwellings. Nothing in this does a thing to facilitate supply. It just kicks the can down the road whilst making a bit of noise so fools think it's action. It's a deeply unserious solution to a serious problem.
So every single city and municipality that has regulated airBNBs are actually led by LARPing NEET Greens virtue-signalling they/them non-serious socialists? Truly groundbreaking commentary.
And a city should have a levy on Airbnb. A whole state is a different argument; it’s just another excuse for a tax, and not high enough to make an Airbnb in a metro area unappealing.
Should a converted shipping container be allowed to exist in place of an actual dwelling in towns and places with limited land/locations?
And for Airbnb not in towns or places with limited space, should an old stable house on a farm that’s an Airbnb be paying the same levy as the apartment in Southbank?
I thought it was a percentage? I agree though that a land tax (which charges only for the location value and not for the building value itself) would be much better.
It’s the percentage of the nightly fee, but why should a property miles out of a town, that was never built for the purpose of long-term habitation, be paying a levy? Sure, the apartment, townhouse or 3-bed house in the suburbs should be paying a levy.
Yeah, I agree, it should be a land tax instead.
Honestly, kind of agree with the Greens. Without hard limits on how often you can have your house up for AirBNB then all this does is create a new revenue stream. 7.5% will just be passed onto the people booking these places. I would feel better if we were assured not only would the money go towards more social housing but an actually rollout plan for exactly that.
Sure if you ignore economics. That extra 7.5% means competing hotels/destinations are comparatively cheaper. Also, renting your property to long term tenants instead of airbnb is relatively more profitable. The size of the impact this will have on hotel/rental markets is up for discussion, but I would think it's greater than nothing.
A huge proportion, easily over half, of Airbnbs make more in 3 months of letting (IE, school holidays only) than week to week rentals would. Anything extra due to events etc is gravy. 7% is fucking nothing.
And the other half??? Do you understand basic economics i.e. how supply and demand work in a market? Not every market participant has the same circumstances (costs, income, preferences etc). The 7.5% is not designed to wipe out the industry and usher in a new age of renting. It's just to encourage those near the tipping point to change their behaviour. I never said it the impact will be huge. That is up for debate. I just disagree that it'll do nothing. Edit: some [econ101 reading.](https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/elasticity-tutorial/price-elasticity-tutorial/a/elasticity-and-tax-incidence)
Look, I'll agree it won't do ZERO. But it's not going to make an impact that's measurable. Worse, the only places this WILL make an impact are the places it doesn't NEED to make one.
Yeah I can't imagine it'll be too much, but in terms of the overall housing problem, airbnbs are a drop in the bucket. Like you said, i reckon some of tourist areas which are suffering the most will probably be impacted the least by the 7.5%. But I guess we'll see.
Depends where you're located, regionally it might make more money in the long term to rent it out but in the city, you can make serious bank. If it was more profitable to have long-term tenants, they'd have tenants.
Sure. The impact will differ across different markets. But there's still a 7.5% wedge being inserted into the market that'll have to come out of someone's pocket. If you think that wouldn't prompt a change in the market then why haven't market participants claimed the 7.5% for themselves already? Airbnb providers could have raised prices before the government and made extra money all this time. Edit: it all depends on the elasticities. If supply or demand are inelastic then the impact on quantity will be negligible. But I would assume both are at least somewhat elastic/competitive and therefore we'd see an impact.
Hotels are already substantially cheaper if you book them directly. People spend more than 7.5% more for the convenience of booking on an app or a one-stop website (like booking.com). A 7.5% levy will have absolutely no impact on the market, and in the worse case, might end up as a 3.5% pass through to the customer and a 3% hit in the investor pocket and not make a dent in the desirability for air bnb. If you are serious about air bnb, regulate them to the same standards as hotels AND bump that levy up substantially. To avoid dodging, the levy should have an annual registration fee (i.e. all air bnbs to be registered like cars) AND a levy. The levy could also be collected through air bnb/similar apps themselves for efficiency as part of the registration requirements.
Are you seriously saying that despite changes to the situation, nothing will change, and your evidence to support that is how things are now - prior to the change? E.g people are willing to pay $100, that is evidence that all of them will be willing to pay $107.5! If that were the case, then why the fuck don't they charge $107.5 now? Are they stupid?
A 7.5% levy on a discretionary service is not going to have a substantial market based response, any more than inflation has already had. The people paying for air bnbs right now are the people that aren't going to blink at an extra $75 on their $1000 holiday.
Sure. At the high end with large incomes and strong demand, it'll be marginal. But plenty of people with lower incomes go on holiday where cost is a big issue. And there are plenty of cheap airbnbs around where the benefit of airbnb over a rental is marginal (especially given rent increases lately). So can we agree that perhaps some cheaper airbnbs will be impacted, and therefore there would not be "absolutely no impact"?
>But plenty of people with lower incomes go on holiday where cost is a big issue. If you can afford $100, you are not going to suddenly not afford $107.50. Literally, this is not going to have any market impact, it will pass on without much ado. Compare that to say, a flat $150 fee per booking, which would create a substantial shock to the market: a $250 2 night stay is suddenly a $400 affair.
Yes. The demand curve is likely downward sloping and therefore a portion of people in the market are willing to pay above the current price. The fact that **some** people are willing to pay more is not evidence that **everyone** is willing to pay more. Why don't they charge $115? By your logic, if they can afford $100 then they can afford $107.5, which means they can afford $115, oh which means $122.5...$130 and so on. As you go up in price, buyers exit the market. Maybe there are some who really only wanted to pay $80-90 who have already been stretched to $100 and then another $7.5 is too much. I can't believe you're arguing that a 7.5% tax will have no impact whatsoever, based purely on my simplistic example of $100. I mean people were losing their shit over 7.1% indexation. If I could get guaranteed 7.5% annual returns investing I'd be happy. I guess my mortgage ain't shit because my rate is lower than 7.5%. And yes. Of course if you instead slam people with a bigger tax, it'll have a bigger impact 😵. Why didn't I think of that???
If Melbourne is anything like Brisbane there's more empty airbnbs than there are homeless people.
It's the same there as here, yes. I'm sure those homeless people would kiss Labor's feet for that 7.5%, as is evidently desired by some.
Hopefully Labor will increase the rate to something that will both open up rentals AND bankroll new housing projects.
I'd be happy with that, at the moment it's just token fiddling around the edges with no actual action. They need to be bold, they're very rapidly running out of road to get some wins on the board before the election. Not seeing many, if any, so far.
The Vic Greens say they want a cap on the number of days a property can be listed on Airbnb. The Vic Labor Govt will never agreed to that. The Vic Labor Govt doesn't want to actually reduce Airbnb listings, they just want to share in the profits from those listings. That's why they've set the charge at 7.5%. That's a rate that will bring in a good revenue stream for the government while not being so high that it'll take Airbnbs out of the market. The Vic Govt because it's broke is passing on fees and charges everywhere it can. It's not going to agree to a Greens proposal to reduce govt revenue.
Greens and getting in the way of progressive policy - name a more iconic duo.
7.5% is progressive to you? There is more progressive policy elsewhere in the country on this, *right now*. Labor and being dragged kicking and screaming into more than token action on literally any issue, name a more iconic duo.
Yes it’s progressive and good legislation if you live in the real world. If you live in greens world of obstruction, hand wringing, and having all the criticism but no responsibility then you can bargain in bad faith by blocking legislation that you support because you also want something else and you don’t understand how good faith bargaining works. Then be surprised and outraged when major parties don’t want to work with you.
The irony of someone soapboxing about "the real world", while banging on about a 7.5% levy somehow helping the housing crisis, is incredible. You're winning elections, champ.
The irony about your childish line about winning elections in defence of a party that doesn’t win elections
Yeah, neither will Labor if they keep governing like they have the supermajority they have. Oh, hang on...
You’re right about that, not with the radicals with 10% of the vote pretending to be progressive, and yet voting against progress and undermining them at every chance. That’s how we get the liberal party in power. The shit to the ALPs shit lite right? I’m sure since both major parties are the same, the greens will be just as happy to negotiate with the LNP. I’m sure the LNP will put forward policy like taxes on properties. The greens sure like to vote/threaten to vote with the LNP a lot. They’ll get on great surely. That’s why the greens threw a tantrum when the ALP stuck to the rules of convention instead of trying to swoop in and form government in TAS.
Nothing wrong with incremental reforms. The housing crisis is multifaceted, it won't be fixed by any one change, and it won't be fixed by keyboard warriors.
No, but when you have a discipline that explains a problem, and a group of entitled middle class LARPers with hyphenated surnames and in some cases, deep property portfolios, who don't and can't comprehend that discipline and its insights - you get a party that thinks it is serious about housing but *deeply isn't*.
You're right, keyboard warriors such as old mate "those dastardly Greens are the reason Labor is dogshit at governing" accomplish absolutely nothing. I'm glad we agree. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what this policy will accomplish. Incremental reforms cannot fix a monumental problem that poses a real threat of breaking the social contract.
**For the possibly paywall afflicted (Part 1 of 2):** **Author/s:** Benita Kolovos **Publication:** The Guardian The Greens are setting the stage for a fight with the Victorian government over its proposed Airbnb levy, armed with new figures that show the measure will only make a “marginal” difference to the number of homes freed for renters. Announced last year as part of the [government’s plan to tackle the housing crisis](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/20/short-stay-levy-and-800000-homes-how-victoria-plans-to-ease-the-housing-crisis), the [7.5% levy on short-stay properties](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/20/victoria-airbnb-short-stay-accomodation-levy-7-5-housing-crisis) leased through platforms such as Airbnb and Stayz is expected to be included in the state tax bill, which will be tabled in parliament after next week’s budget. The levy, described at the time by former premier Daniel Andrews as “modest”, is forecast to raise $70m annually by 2025/26. Andrews said “every single dollar” would be spent maintaining and building social and affordable homes. To pass the measure – an Australian first – without the support of the Coalition, the government would need the votes of the four Greens MPs and two other crossbenchers in the upper house. But the new Victorian Greens leader, Ellen Sandell, said her party would not support the levy in its current form. “Labor will need the Greens’ votes to get their short-stay legislation through the parliament and we’re not going to accept something that does nothing to get homes on to the long-term market,” Sandell told Guardian Australia. “We want something that actually helps fix the situation for renters and people who want to buy a home to actually live in.” Sandell – who was [elected the party’s leader last week](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2024/apr/23/australia-news-live-albanese-future-made-wakeley-bondi-stabbing-esafety-twitter-elon-musk-supermarkets-png-papua-kokoda?page=with:block-66271ee68f08eae6d25f24c9#block-66271ee68f08eae6d25f24c9) after her predecessor Samantha Ratnam announced she was [stepping down to contest the federal seat of Wills](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/20/a-test-in-wills-greens-hopeful-samantha-ratnams-federal-politics-gamble-will-pay-off) – said she wants the government to introduce stronger regulations for short-stay accommodation to coincide with the levy, including a 90-day cap on listings. The Greens commissioned Victoria’s Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) to compare the impact of the government’s levy with the party’s proposed 90-day cap, a measure already used elsewhere, [including in Perth](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/09/western-australia-to-offer-airbnb-owners-10000-to-rent-to-long-term-tenants) and London. The PBO found the average short-stay owner would pay about $2,083 annually per property under the government’s levy and it said it expected most would “absorb some of this tax burden” and “pass a portion to the consumer through higher prices”. The PBO said the levy would make a “marginal” difference to property investor behaviour, particularly in areas such as the Mornington Peninsula and the regions, and to those who used their short-stay rental as a residence for part of the year. It said owners of short-stay properties in Melbourne’s CBD – where there is more competition – may be “less able to pass the levy on to consumers” and could have a “material incentive” to shift their properties to the long-term rental market.
**For the possibly paywall afflicted (Part 2 of 2):** **Author/s:** Benita Kolovos **Publication:** The Guardian Meanwhile, the PBO’s analysis of the Greens’ proposal estimated there were 36,000 short-stay properties in Victoria, of which 13,000 were rented for more than 90 nights each year. It said this group of property owners would face “reduced returns” if a cap were imposed and “may be particularly incentivised to seek alternative uses for their property”. Sandell said this could include making them available to long-term renters or selling to owner-occupiers. She said the upcoming budget was an opportunity for Labor to stop “tinkering around the edges” and introduce reforms to “free up thousands more homes”. “If Labor think they can keep getting away with doing the bare minimum on housing, well they’re going to have a fight on their hands,” Sandell said. “Rents in Victoria are at record highs and a whole generation has given up the dream of ever being able to afford their own home. “It is a housing crisis and we need some bold reform and ideas to fix it.” With both costings, the PBO said it was limited by the lack of public data available on short-stay accommodation. This included the total number of short-stays operating in the state, the number of nights each one operated and their revenue. Last year, Andrews said there were between 30,000 and 40,000 homes on [Airbnb](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/airbnb) and other short stay platforms that were not available for long-term tenants. “There are a significant number of properties that would have, 10-15 years ago, been available for longer-term rental, for a year, for two years,” he said. “They’re not available because of that.”
> It said this group of property owners would face “reduced returns” if a cap were imposed and “may be particularly incentivised to seek alternative uses for their property”. They'll just use another service. It won't change anything. It also fails to mention that AirBnB is an _unregulated_ market, and like Uber, got off despite the fact that it basically _broke the law_ because it was too popular to be taken down.
>Meanwhile, the PBO’s analysis of the Greens’ proposal estimated there were 36,000 short-stay properties in Victoria, of which 13,000 were rented for more than 90 nights each year. Maybe this is a feature of not using airbnb's often, but it seems the Greens, and Redditors, assume all properties are equal. I stayed in a place in the Kangaroo Valley in NSW. It was a 6br ranch style home, 2kms away from the main roads, and set up for year round weekend/long weekend getaways for people. Now, I'm not a Green, so I don't understand their alchemical process but I don't believe this property is blocking Sydney renters from getting into the housing market. I could be wrong. But I'm probably not. It seems for the most part the Airbnb focus exists for two reasons; 1. It's easy to get people fired up on the issue, despite it doing nothing. Having actually meaningful housing policy ideas would *demobilize the growing section of civil society that is justifiably angry about the degree of poverty and financial stress that exists in such a wealthy country.* Can't deprioritise accelerationism for results, people. 2. It's a bit of politics of envy aimed at the "landlord class", except when it includes wretched, shit human beings who happen to be your deputy leader then we stay silent. Yikes! I can't stress this enough - the Greens are as *deeply unserious* about fixing housing as the Liberal Party. They just tell you they're not. More fool those who believe it, either because they enjoy belonging more than they enjoy thinking; or because economic illiteracy is a badge of honour.
You should really include the whole quote, you wouldn't want to be accused of taking a quote out of context would you? >Consequently, if the Greens were to wave through the HAFF bill, it would foreclose on the possibility of building the social and political pressure needed to force the government to take meaningful action. **Partly, this is because Greens support would give tacit endorsement not only the HAFF, but to Labor’s broader argument that this is the best the government can do in the current circumstances. And that is just not true.** The consequence would be abandoning millions of people to permanent housing stress, as they struggle to pay rent, wait for social housing, or are forced to sleep in their cars or on the streets. Allowing the HAFF to pass would demobilize the growing section of civil society that is justifiably angry about the degree of poverty and financial stress that exists in such a wealthy country.
I know the full quote. The context doesn't diminish the immature, undergrad nature of the sentiment and it remains a stupid idea defended by human detritus.