Vaccancy Tax to fund family violence programs

Victoria is considering taxing vacant homes to support women fleeing family violence. Similar to what is done in Britain and Canada:
If a property is vacant, should it be taxed to help fund family violence programs?

Looks like a good initiative and will also address house banking issues.

 

"The proposal – modelled on a similar levy used in Britain and Canada – would involve taxing thousands of houses or apartments that have been unfurnished and unoccupied for a long time"

I hope it won't be as simple as just put some furnitures in the property to avoid the tax. Otherwise, I expect a low efficiency from this new tax...

 

I fail to see the nexus between someone owning a property that they CHOOSE not to rent out and family violence.

 

There isn't one, but it makes the govt look less like a money grabbing douche if they say it's going to a good cause rather than just saying they will tax vacant dwellings.

 

Lmao so true. I'm glad for the cause but i don't buy into the right to own a house and see it as an asset class. There is a human right to shelter not ownership. Therefore if someone wants to own and not rent it whilst it doesn't make sense to me it's their right.

 

It would be far more sensible to link a tax on alcohol to family violence than to vacant housing stock. Are they going to tax developers who can't sell due to a downturn in the market? Or the little old lady who is in a nursing home and no one has sold/rented her family home of the last 70 years?

 

• Thanks for well articulated views. Increased tax revenue is usually the foundation for any socially beneficial programs.
  
• Looks like the Royal Commission into Family Violence, housing and homeless experts, tax reform groups, governments in Britain and Canada have a different opinion.
  
• IMHO it's a simple cost/benefit analysis, wherein prima facie social and market regulatory benefits appear to outweigh minimal cost to a few aberrant/speculative investors, who can afford it.

Home ownership is not being rescinded. It is a tax on the asset when the asset does not comply with the purpose of it's existence but is instead used for speculative purposes/hoarding. Taxing against hoarding is neither new or unique to property. Governments all over the world do it, just in this case there is a social benevolence ascribed to it. Some excerpts from the article which highlight the reason and outcome of this change:

• "This is not a heavy-handed tax – it's a tax to encourage housing to be released to the market and if people are choosing not to do that, then they should make a contribution,"
• "It's hard to reconcile that housing stands vacant while victims of family violence and others are struggling to keep a roof over their heads."

Fair points. The British model has exemptions and the same should apply here as well.

The idea of a vacancy tax is similar to a system used in Britain, where the Local Government Finance Act gives councils the authority to charge a 50 per cent premium for any property that has been unoccupied for two years or more (provided the house does not belong to someone in hospital or prison, or if it has been compulsory acquired and will be demolished).

 

What if the house is not fit for human occupation and the owner is waiting to get a planning permit through VCAT. Or waiting for presales. The eventual demolition and construction will result in more housing being released. Some developers buy houses and wait for neighbouring house to come on the market before carrying out development all this takes time.

I just find the nexus ludicrous. Just say your taxing vacant housing and in other news your increasing funding for domestic violence iniatives.

 

Examine the article carefully, there are exemptions both in time and reasons before the tax commences. The tax is not aimed at developers and a 2 year period (as in British version), should address the development concerns. This is just a proposal currently. Actual policy will have more details and these issues will be taken into consideration.

Taxing unoccupied homes for providing shelter to victims of family violence
=> Home vacancy tax >= Homelessness reduction [Q.E.D]

 

Instead of a vacancy tax, how about scrapping all tax benefits against properties that are held vacant for the purpose of capital gains.

I am supportive, and would love to see govts and community commit more funding towards domestic violence initiatives. However, it should not be dependent upon anything other than its own merits.

Agreed. Or raising taxes to subsidies rents for low income families.

Homes being kept empty for speculation purposes and still claiming tax benefits is obscene.

 

If your a developer you pay the tax in the end. No CGT, all income.

 

Victoria blew at least $657 million cancelling the East West Link project.

How many family volience shelters and other programs would that have funded?

 

Yawn. Typical nanny state mentality - ie they know how to spend your money better than you do.

 

Don't expect government to run more efficiently when you can just keep raising new taxes.

 

They aren't really saying there's a nexus. They're saying they need money to fund these programs, and this is how they're going to get it.

You're perfectly within your rights to own a property and not use it for anything.

And assuming the government gets this passed, they'll be perfectly within their rights to tax you for it.

Probably none, considering that if they'd moved forward with the East West Link they would have had to fork out another $6 billion just to complete stage 1, then somewhere close to $10 billion for stage 2.

And considering Victoria gets totally shafted in terms of federal infrastructure funding:

I wouldn't have been expecting the federal government to be much of a help.


For those in Melbourne, the Savoy Tavern directly opposite Southern Cross Station sat there for somewhere close to twenty years doing absolutely nothing. Prime CBD real estate, held because some developer wanted to make a buck (which they didn't even end up doing, just re-opened the *******' establishment after 2 decades). Sat there as a hideous eyesore. Absolutely zero pity if someone like that has to pay tax.

Overhauling a Spencer Street Eyesore – The Savoy Tavern

 

They had to spend that money to avoid a costly mistake that the incompetent Lib "government" made. You'd rather pay $12 billion on a project that would have had a very poor ROI? What the Libs did in signing a side deed for compensation if the project didn't go through borders on corrupt.

 

Yes, the faith would be higher if it was:

• Mossack Fonseca looking after the beneficiaries.
• Comminsure looking after it's shareholders.
• Iceland's prime minister looking after the country's banks.
• David Cameron's mum and dad looking after their poor kid.
• .....

Regrettably the government's are riddled with inefficiencies, and the beneficiaries might be duded.

It will be much better if these victims are handed over to the private sector say..... brothels or this brilliant enterprise:
Slave houses: 'Help, help, help. Locked doors, run away'

 

GST - Stamp Duty

st

 

I agree, and that's why I'm refusing to pay any income tax, stamp duty or GST ever again in protest.

Wish me luck. When the ATO kicks my door in at some stage I'll just say "Well, you don't use my money effectively anyway!" and that'll clear everything up.

Instead, I've decided to contribute my taxes to the not-for-profit sector. I hear the Shane Warne Foundation is really good at passing on charitable donations.

Or maybe instead I'll give it to some of the other hundreds of "charities" that are about to have their DGR status revoked by the ANCN.