Andrews government expected to detail crackdown on rent bidding and stop landlords from raising prices after asking previous tenant to vacate

I'm wary of how diluted "affordable housing" means. Bypassing Council, VCAT and third party appeals are very tasty prizes for developers and I'm sure plenty would manipulate the definition of "affordable housing" to get a ticket to far less planning oversight, especially with the low bar of entry at 50 million. More housing is desperately needed, and NIMBY pushback has definitely been an issue, but I really hope the homes will actually be affordable, and that the Vic government planners will enforce good quality design, not boundary to boundary grossness with no setbacks or green space.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah I just saw that. I'm curious about it though, because the Guardian article described it as an "Australian-first". It's not clear to me what the levy is on.

    But in Brisbane City Council, we've had a 50% increase to rates for short term accommodation since last financial year, up to 65% this year. That's a much bigger number than 7.5%.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      ·
      1 year ago

      I'm assuming rates are the council rates (the ~$2000 you pay yearly if you own a property), while the Victoria tax is a tax on the actual income you make on the rental property?

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        ·
        1 year ago

        Victoria tax is a tax on the actual income you make on the rental property

        Okay I did a little more searching, and the ABC article about it seems a little more clear. They say:

        The 7.5 per cent levy will apply to revenue from the platforms from January 1, 2025.

        So basically as you say, except instead of being "a tax on the...income you make", it's a tax on the company's revenue. Sounds good for revenue-raising purposes, but unless it drives Airbnb to increase the percent they take as a cut from houses that rent through them, it won't have any direct impact on the choice of a property owner, since their revenue is unaffected. Of course, that wording is just ambiguous enough that it could still be a form of extra income tax, which would feel weird since that's typically a federal responsibility.

        Really, any of those ideas is conceivable. And I'm not sure if the lack of clarity is because of poor communication from the news organisations, poor communication from the Government itself, or if it's because the plan is only in the early stages and the Government doesn't actually know how it would be implemented yet.