Greens propose new tax on commercial property owners to revive empty Melbourne shopping strips   :)


January 25 2025
ABC News

The Victorian Greens are proposing a tax on commercial landlords to breathe new life into struggling Melbourne shopping strips such as Chapel Street in Prahran. 

In short:
Victorian Greens have made a pitch to voters to breathe new life into 'dead' shopping strips ahead of next month's Prahran by-election.

Their proposal is to slap a 2 per cent commercial vacancy tax on property owners who have kept their premises empty for more than six months, incentivising landlords to keep shops tenanted.

What's next?
A by-election will be held in the state seat of Prahran on February 8.


The Victorian Greens are proposing a new tax on owners of vacant shops with the goal of revitalising empty shopping strips.

The party's announcement on Saturday comes ahead of a by-election in the seat of Prahran in Melbourne's inner-south where the once bustling Chapel Street is struggling.

The plan is to introduce a 2 per cent commercial vacancy tax on owners of properties that have been empty for more than six consecutive months of the year.

The Greens say this would push landlords who have kept their stores empty instead of lowering rent, to get tenants.

Vacant shops in Chapel Street
The Greens candidate for Prahran says many people in the area are sad so many local shops have closed.

The party says independent costing conducted by the Parliamentary Budget Office forecasts the policy would raise around $258 million in state revenue over four years.

Greens candidate for Prahran, Angelica Di Camillo, said the money could be used to provide direct support for traders, artists and pop-ups in vacant premises.

Young woman and middle aged man pictured side by side on Chapel Street
Prahran by-election candidate for the Victorian Greens, Angelica Di Camillo, announced the party's new tax proposal alongside the party's national leader Adam Bandt.

"You only have to walk down Chapel Street to see how dead a lot of the shops are, how empty they are," Ms Di Camillo told reporters on Saturday.

"People are really frustrated about it and it's coming up a lot that people want to see something done about this."

She said the Greens would seek the state government's support for the new tax.

"We've been working to push this and having discussions around it (with the government)," she said.

Ms Di Camillo said in recent conversations with voters about next month's by-election many people had raised the issue with her.

"Going down further towards Carlisle Street, for example, in Balaclava, you see a significant amount of empty shops," she said.

"A lot of the time, landlords are putting up the rent and if they don't get that rent, they're happy to leave it empty and it's really impacting our neighbourhoods here.   

Shop with a 'for sale' sign in Chapel Street
There are numerous vacant shops in Chapel Street, which the Greens say is a concern for the local economy.

"Empty shops means less local jobs, it hurts the local economy and our vibrant neighbourhood."

The Prahran by-election, prompted by the departure of Greens MP Sam Hibbins, will be held on February 8.

There's also a by-election in former Labor government treasurer Tim Pallas's seat of Werribee on the same day.

"A lot of the time, landlords are putting up the rent and if they don't get that rent, they're happy to leave it empty and it's really impacting our neighbourhoods here.  Well if the rent is too much, and they just leave it empty, then no-one wins.   :(      

How do the idiotic Greens intend to force occupancy of vacant shops?

The Greens come up with some truly stupid ideas. Somehow they think that putting extra taxes on struggling shopping areas is going to help them. They think that not getting any income from your property investment is a cunning scheme that needs to be stopped by the government.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 9:25am:

The Greens come up with some truly stupid ideas. Somehow they think that putting extra taxes on struggling shopping areas is going to help them. They think that not getting any income from your property investment is a cunning scheme that needs to be stopped by the government.

So the premise of this scheme is to make the cost of a commercial building more expensive in an effort to lower rents.

Good work Greens.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 9:25am:

The Greens come up with some truly stupid ideas. Somehow they think that putting extra taxes on struggling shopping areas is going to help them. They think that not getting any income from your property investment is a cunning scheme that needs to be stopped by the government.

If this tax ever got passed, you'd end up with owners of shopping centres selling left, right and centre rather than pay this stupid tax.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 9:25am:

The Greens come up with some truly stupid ideas. Somehow they think that putting extra taxes on struggling shopping areas is going to help them. They think that not getting any income from your property investment is a cunning scheme that needs to be stopped by the government.

I know Chapel street -
you'd have to be a sucker to buy anything there -
even T shirts cost $100 each.

The rents and rates are super high.
That's why it's all closing down.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 9:25am:

The Greens come up with some truly stupid ideas. Somehow they think that putting extra taxes on struggling shopping areas is going to help them. They think that not getting any income from your property investment is a cunning scheme that needs to be stopped by the government.

it might not be such a dumb idea in this case ... the 'center' where my business is located has had two sites vacant for over two years, and the owners will not negotiate on price. They are more then happy to leave it vacant because of the tax perks

force them to pay more tax on it and force them to the table

Quote:

They are more then happy to leave it vacant because of the tax perks

;D

The Greens mentality. Rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment.

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:05pm:

Quote: They are more then happy to leave it vacant because of the tax perks ;D The Greens mentality. Rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment.

You've got more to do with the greens than I do, you dumbarse.

John Smith wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 4:54pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 9:25am: The Greens come up with some truly stupid ideas. Somehow they think that putting extra taxes on struggling shopping areas is going to help them. They think that not getting any income from your property investment is a cunning scheme that needs to be stopped by the government. it might not be such a dumb idea in this case ... the 'center' where my business is located has had two sites vacant for over two years, and the owners will not negotiate on price. They are more then happy to leave it vacant because of the tax perks force them to pay more tax on it and force them to the table

you say you own a business but you seem to lack business sense. If they do manage to put a tax on vacant properties the cost of renting will be impacted. Investments are tuned to make a % of profit, increase the insurance up goes the rent, increase the cost of services, up goes the rent, increase the taxes, up goes the rent. Investors total all the costs before factoring in the return %. A vacant tax will simply become another cost to be passed onto the renter.

John Smith wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:07pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 5:05pm: Quote: They are more then happy to leave it vacant because of the tax perks ;D The Greens mentality. Rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment. You've got more to do with the greens than I do, you dumbarse.

You don't need to sign up for membership to support every stupid idea they trot out John. I was not accusing you of having anything at all to do with them.

Leroy wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 4:54pm: freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 9:25am: The Greens come up with some truly stupid ideas. Somehow they think that putting extra taxes on struggling shopping areas is going to help them. They think that not getting any income from your property investment is a cunning scheme that needs to be stopped by the government. it might not be such a dumb idea in this case ... the 'center' where my business is located has had two sites vacant for over two years, and the owners will not negotiate on price. They are more then happy to leave it vacant because of the tax perks force them to pay more tax on it and force them to the table you say you own a business but you seem to lack business sense. If they do manage to put a tax on vacant properties the cost of renting will be impacted. Investments are tuned to make a % of profit, increase the insurance up goes the rent, increase the cost of services, up goes the rent, increase the taxes, up goes the rent. Investors total all the costs before factoring in the return %. A vacant tax will simply become another cost to be passed onto the renter.

If the shop is vacant there is no renter to pass the tax onto you dumbarse :D :D :D

freediver wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 5:07pm: freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 5:05pm: Quote: They are more then happy to leave it vacant because of the tax perks ;D The Greens mentality. Rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment. You've got more to do with the greens than I do, you dumbarse. You don't need to sign up for membership to support every stupid idea they trot out John. I was not accusing you of having anything at all to do with them.

I didn't say i support it. I just think there might be some merit to the idea.

John Smith wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:16pm:

Leroy wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 5:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 4:54pm: freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 9:25am: The Greens come up with some truly stupid ideas. Somehow they think that putting extra taxes on struggling shopping areas is going to help them. They think that not getting any income from your property investment is a cunning scheme that needs to be stopped by the government. it might not be such a dumb idea in this case ... the 'center' where my business is located has had two sites vacant for over two years, and the owners will not negotiate on price. They are more then happy to leave it vacant because of the tax perks force them to pay more tax on it and force them to the table you say you own a business but you seem to lack business sense. If they do manage to put a tax on vacant properties the cost of renting will be impacted. Investments are tuned to make a % of profit, increase the insurance up goes the rent, increase the cost of services, up goes the rent, increase the taxes, up goes the rent. Investors total all the costs before factoring in the return %. A vacant tax will simply become another cost to be passed onto the renter. If the shop is vacant there is no renter to pass the tax onto you dumbarse :D :D :D

I take it you watch that 70's show.

Like I said you need a business mind to when dealing with property.

If the property is vacant for tax purposes then it would be to reduce tax from other leased property. If its your only property then there is no tax advantage. It will raise rents across the board to cover the increased costs. But don't take my word for it ask anyone over 17.

Leroy wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:21pm:

Like I said you need a business mind to when dealing with property.

is that the same mind that claimed non existant renters would need to pay more in rent? :D


Leroy wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:21pm:

If the property is vacant for tax purposes then it would be to reduce tax from other leased property

don't tell that to fd .. he seems to think there are no tax perks.

OR .. If they're so cashed up they don't need the income, and would rather use the repayments as a tax write off , whilst banking long term on the capital gain of the building.


Leroy wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:21pm:

It will raise rents across the board to cover the increased costs

what costs? :D :D The tax is only payable if the premises is vacant. Once it is leased to a tenant there is no more tax. If commercial property owners are forced to the table, commercial rents will likely decrease.

John Smith wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:29pm:

Leroy wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 5:21pm: Like I said you need a business mind to when dealing with property. is that the same mind that claimed non existant renters would need to pay more in rent? :D Leroy wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 5:21pm: If the property is vacant for tax purposes then it would be to reduce tax from other leased property don't tell that to fd .. he seems to think there are no tax perks. OR .. If they're so cashed up they don't need the income, and would rather use the repayments as a tax write off , whilst banking long term on the capital gain of the building. Leroy wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 5:21pm: It will raise rents across the board to cover the increased costs what costs? :D :D The tax is only payable if the premises is vacant. Once it is leased to a tenant there is no more tax. If commercial property owners are forced to the table, commercial rents will likely decrease.

You don't seem to understand that any cost involved in an investment property will be factored in when setting the rent. When an investor looks at renting out a property they will recoup all costs including any tax they paid while the property was vacant. It will just be included in costs and added to the rent, just like any other tax is passed onto the tenant. In fact it will probably end up a windfall for investors because it will raise rents and those that have renters will just pocket the extra money.

Leroy,
they can't rent them out now as the rents are too high.
They can hardly expect them to increase the rent.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:39pm:

Leroy, they can't rent them out now as the rents are too high. They can hardly expect them to increase the rent.

In commercial real estate you need at least 10% vacancy if not more. The reason being if vacancies are very low then rents increase, if vacancies are over 20% then rents will drop.

Market forces will dictate the cost of rent, you can fiddle with the knobs but it won't make any difference. Any costs incorporated in holding a commercial property will be passed onto the renter. Ask any real estate agent what will happen to rents if they put a 2% tax on vacant property.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:39pm:

Leroy, they can't rent them out now as the rents are too high. They can hardly expect them to increase the rent.

Last November I bought a commercial property and will not rent it out, I'm using it for personal storage. I sold most of my rentals and found that I could buy a commercial building for the price of a house but the capitol gain will be higher. If the government did put a vacancy tax of 2% more on it then thats 2% more I can claim on tax. Using tax to solve a problem is bonkers, its accepting its a problem and doing nothing to solve the problem. a 2% vacancy tax is not going to make renting out a commercial property cheaper for the renter or cost the owner more money its just going to create more paperwork.

John Smith wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 4:54pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 9:25am: The Greens come up with some truly stupid ideas. Somehow they think that putting extra taxes on struggling shopping areas is going to help them. They think that not getting any income from your property investment is a cunning scheme that needs to be stopped by the government. it might not be such a dumb idea in this case ... the 'center' where my business is located has had two sites vacant for over two years, and the owners will not negotiate on price. They are more then happy to leave it vacant because of the tax perks force them to pay more tax on it and force them to the table

If this idiotic policy gets passed, then we'll see one of two things happen - perhaps both. Either the people who own the shopping centres where they lease the shops to tenants will sell the shopping centre rather than pay an additional tax, or they will pay the tax and hike the rent of every other shop in their centre, forcing tenants to raise their prices to cover the additional rent, meaning the consumer ends up paying.

Leroy wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:35pm:

You don't seem to understand that any cost involved in an investment property will be factored in when setting the rent.

You can't be that clueless

You don't seem to understand that the whole point of this idea is to force landlords to meet the market. I already told you that two commercial premises where I am located have been vacant for two years+ because the landlord is holding out with an unreasonably high rent. He won't even discuss a lower rent. A tax like this will force him to the table and he either pay the tax, or reduce the rent he's asking for to meet the market. Thats a lower rent, not a higher rent.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 7:04pm:

If this idiotic policy gets passed, then we'll see one of two things happen - perhaps both. Either the people who own the shopping centres where they lease the shops to tenants will sell the shopping centre rather than pay an additional tax

Not an issue either way



Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 7:04pm:

or they will pay the tax and hike the rent of every other shop in their centre, forcing tenants to raise their prices to cover the additional rent, meaning the consumer ends up paying.

which would result in more vacancies and more tax for them to pay until the center is empty, .. the end result is they pay a fortune in tax until they are leased, sell at land value, or they stop ripping off their tenants and rent them out at market prices to avoid paying the tax

Leroy wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:46pm:

Market forces will dictate the cost of rent, you can fiddle with the knobs but it won't make any difference.

crap. You need to get out in the real world.

in my town there are a select few multi millionaires who own most of the commercial property, and they don't need the money. Their real income is made by other means and for them the properties are just a tax write off. There are many premises that have been empty for years, and still they won't drop their asking prices. They are totally unwilling to negotiate on rent. The whole town suffers as a consequence because those that want to open up a business don't because they don't want to get locked in to exorbitant rents, the premises look run down because no one maintains them, which in turn turns off tourists which has a knock on effect for other businesses that rely on tourists to show up.

John Smith wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:17pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 5:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 5:07pm: freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2025 at 5:05pm: Quote: They are more then happy to leave it vacant because of the tax perks ;D The Greens mentality. Rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment. You've got more to do with the greens than I do, you dumbarse. You don't need to sign up for membership to support every stupid idea they trot out John. I was not accusing you of having anything at all to do with them. I didn't say i support it. I just think there might be some merit to the idea.

And you explained that merit by parroting the Greens mentality - rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment.

Leroy wrote on Jan 28^th, 2025 at 5:57pm:

Last November I bought a commercial property and will not rent it out, I'm using it for personal storage. I sold most of my rentals and found that I could buy a commercial building for the price of a house but the capitol gain will be higher. If the government did put a vacancy tax of 2% more on it then thats 2% more I can claim on tax. Using tax to solve a problem is bonkers, its accepting its a problem and doing nothing to solve the problem. a 2% vacancy tax is not going to make renting out a commercial property cheaper for the renter or cost the owner more money its just going to create more paperwork.

Firstly, you cannot claim the cost as a deduction on your taxes if you are using it for 'personal storage'. Only if you are using it to store plant / equipment you use to make your income.

Secondly, the premises is not vacant, you said you are using it for storage so you would not have to pay a vacancy tax on it.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 6:59am:

And you explained that merit by parroting the Greens mentality - rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment.

I explained it by stating the reality of it.

It is only you who is obsessed with the greens. I've no idea what the greens mentality is. You on the other hand once wanted to join the greens so it's no wonder you are so butt hurt by anything they propose. Did they reject you?

Quote:

I explained it by stating the reality of it.

Rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment.

Sounds like spin to me, that was not fully thought through, like most of the Greens policies these days. It reveals far more about your mentality than what the landlords are actually thinking.

Smith is right.
Tourists don't want to visit him anymore.
No more bananas for Smith. 🍌

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 7:45am:

Rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment.

But they don't lose money. Their profit comes from their capital gains. Instead of paying taxes, they pay the interest on acquiring the property. For them the cost is the same but instead of it  going to the tax man, it goes to building up their portfolio

I thought you said you understood economics? :D

John would you also say that not paying income tax is a "tax perk" from losing your job?

Smith got his economics degree at Dapto Dog races

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 7:51am:

John would you also say that not paying income tax is a "tax perk" from losing your job?

No need to go to stupid now just because I showed how ignorant you are  ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 7:54am:

freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 7:51am: John would you also say that not paying income tax is a "tax perk" from losing your job? No need to go to stupid now just because I showed how ignorant you are  ;D ;D

You keep thinking you are proving something about other people - landlords, me etc. But it is only proving that you share the Greens mentality. Yes it is a stupid question, just as stupid as you trying to spin loss of rental income as a tax perk. But I would still like to know.

Would you also say that not paying income tax is a "tax perk" from losing your job?

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 7:56am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 7:54am: freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 7:51am: John would you also say that not paying income tax is a "tax perk" from losing your job? No need to go to stupid now just because I showed how ignorant you are  ;D ;D You keep thinking you are proving something about other people - landlords, me etc. But it is only proving that you share the Greens mentality. Yes it is a stupid question, just as stupid as you trying to spin loss of rental income as a tax perk. But I would still like to know. Would you also say that not paying income tax is a "tax perk" from losing your job?

I know it's your default setting, but you were told not to go to stupid.

Does it depend on who is losing their job? If they are "them" rather than "us" does losing your job become a cunning tax perk?

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 9:12am:

Does it depend on who is losing their job? If they are "them" rather than "us" does losing your job become a cunning tax perk?

Is deflection all you got left FD?

John Smith wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 7:50am:

freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 7:45am: Rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment. But they don't lose money. Their profit comes from their capital gains. Instead of paying taxes, they pay the interest on acquiring the property. For them the cost is the same but instead of it  going to the tax man, it goes to building up their portfolio I thought you said you understood economics? :D

Owning a commercial property costs about 8-12,000 per yr when you pay insurance, rates, services, (strata fees, parking levies, ect ) and capitol gains.
some commercial owners don't want to ean money they just need somewhere to park money.

There is more to owning a property than just buying it and getting rent.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 7:56am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 7:54am: freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 7:51am: John would you also say that not paying income tax is a "tax perk" from losing your job? No need to go to stupid now just because I showed how ignorant you are  ;D ;D You keep thinking you are proving something about other people - landlords, me etc. But it is only proving that you share the Greens mentality. Yes it is a stupid question, just as stupid as you trying to spin loss of rental income as a tax perk. But I would still like to know. Would you also say that not paying income tax is a "tax perk" from losing your job?

I retired because I paid too much tax, I can maintain my lifestyle (I still make money to live from investments).

Leroy wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 9:27am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 7:50am: freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 7:45am: Rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment. But they don't lose money. Their profit comes from their capital gains. Instead of paying taxes, they pay the interest on acquiring the property. For them the cost is the same but instead of it  going to the tax man, it goes to building up their portfolio I thought you said you understood economics? :D Owning a commercial property costs about 8-12,000 per yr when you pay insurance, rates, services, (strata fees, parking levies, ect ) and capitol gains. some commercial owners don't want to ean money they just need somewhere to park money. There is more to owning a property than just buying it and getting rent.

you should let FD know

John Smith wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 9:56am:

Leroy wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 9:27am: John Smith wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 7:50am: freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 7:45am: Rich people with their cunning plans get "tax perks" from losing money on their investment. But they don't lose money. Their profit comes from their capital gains. Instead of paying taxes, they pay the interest on acquiring the property. For them the cost is the same but instead of it  going to the tax man, it goes to building up their portfolio I thought you said you understood economics? :D Owning a commercial property costs about 8-12,000 per yr when you pay insurance, rates, services, (strata fees, parking levies, ect ) and capitol gains. some commercial owners don't want to ean money they just need somewhere to park money. There is more to owning a property than just buying it and getting rent. you should let FD know

OK
FD read this.

Leroy wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 10:15am:

OK FD read this.

Be prepared for him to come back with some stupid question ::)

So it's not a cunning tax perk, they simply don't want the rental income?

::)

John Smith wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 11:29am:

Leroy wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 10:15am: OK FD read this. Be prepared for him to come back with some stupid question ::)

(Checks all paperwork and database.)

Preparations complete.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 11:33am:

So it's not a cunning tax perk, they simply don't want the rental income? ::)

Well they are not all the same, some might be retired and don't want the income and have parked some money in property just in case the markets fall over.

Some might waiting for zoning changes.

Some might just have a pocket buy and will use it when the time is right.

Some could be bought in a trust for the future.

Some will be speculative.

There are hundreds of reasons.

Leroy wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 11:39am:

freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 11:33am: So it's not a cunning tax perk, they simply don't want the rental income? ::) Well they are not all the same, some might be retired and don't want the income and have parked some money in property just in case the markets fall over. Some might waiting for zoning changes. Some might just have a pocket buy and will use it when the time is right. Some could be bought in a trust for the future. Some will be speculative. There are hundreds of reasons.

Any any of them good reasons? Or do they all rely on an over-active imagination?

Leroy wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 11:39am:

freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 11:33am: So it's not a cunning tax perk, they simply don't want the rental income? ::) Well they are not all the same, some might be retired and don't want the income and have parked some money in property just in case the markets fall over. Some might waiting for zoning changes. Some might just have a pocket buy and will use it when the time is right. Some could be bought in a trust for the future. Some will be speculative. There are hundreds of reasons.

You can't say I didn't warn you :D :D

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 11:40am:

Any any of them good reasons? Or do they all rely on an over-active imagination?

What makes them good? Do they need your approval before they qualify as good? Or is there some other standard?

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 11:40am:

Leroy wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 11:39am: freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 11:33am: So it's not a cunning tax perk, they simply don't want the rental income? ::) Well they are not all the same, some might be retired and don't want the income and have parked some money in property just in case the markets fall over. Some might waiting for zoning changes. Some might just have a pocket buy and will use it when the time is right. Some could be bought in a trust for the future. Some will be speculative. There are hundreds of reasons. Any any of them good reasons? Or do they all rely on an over-active imagination?

Maybe reasons that you don't understand.

Personally I'm in the first box, diversity.

I have a mate who has a building he ran his printer shop in for decades but now does nothing and is waiting until he gets an offer he can't refuse. He won't rent because it makes it harder to sell. Owning a property is no different to some people from having boats, caravans, holiday homes ect, its not about the money.

John Smith wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 11:52am:

freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 11:40am: Any any of them good reasons? Or do they all rely on an over-active imagination? What makes them good? Do they need your approval before they qualify as good? Or is there some other standard?

If it was your money (and you had half a brain) would you actually want to forgo the rental income because you are "just parking money"? Or because you thought it was a cunning scheme to get tax perks?

Or does this logic only apply to some nefarious, wealthy "them"?

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 12:32pm:

If it was your money (and you had half a brain) would you actually want to forgo the rental income because you are "just parking money"? Or because you thought it was a cunning scheme to get tax perks? Or does this logic only apply to some nefarious, wealthy "them"?

you don't want to answer ehh ::)

This is why the Greens are so off with the fairies. As soon as they start talking about other people's money, common sense goes out the window.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 12:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 11:52am: freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 11:40am: Any any of them good reasons? Or do they all rely on an over-active imagination? What makes them good? Do they need your approval before they qualify as good? Or is there some other standard? If it was your money (and you had half a brain) would you actually want to forgo the rental income because you are "just parking money"? Or because you thought it was a cunning scheme to get tax perks? Or does this logic only apply to some nefarious, wealthy "them"?

Depends where you are at and what amount of time you want to invest.

If you are running a business and you are making lots of profit you might buy property to lower your profit to avoid tax and pick up a asset which you can sell at a later date when your profit is not high and pay less tax.

There is a myriad of reasons to park money.

In case you missed it twice already fd



John Smith wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 11:52am:

What makes them good? Do they need your approval before they qualify as good? Or is there some other standard?

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 12:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 11:52am: freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 11:40am: Any any of them good reasons? Or do they all rely on an over-active imagination? What makes them good? Do they need your approval before they qualify as good? Or is there some other standard? If it was your money (and you had half a brain) would you actually want to forgo the rental income because you are "just parking money"? Or because you thought it was a cunning scheme to get tax perks? Or does this logic only apply to some nefarious, wealthy "them"?

Bit of envy there.

Leroy wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 1:01pm:

Depends where you are at and what amount of time you want to invest. If you are running a business and you are making lots of profit you might buy property to lower your profit to avoid tax and pick up a asset which you can sell at a later date when your profit is not high and pay less tax. There is a myriad of reasons to park money.

Fd read in an economic text book one day that people buy property only for the rent .. therefore no other reason can exist :D :D :D

Quote:

If you are running a business and you are making lots of profit you might buy property to lower your profit to avoid tax and pick up a asset which you can sell at a later date when your profit is not high and pay less tax.

You didn't answer the question. You didn't even mention rental income.

If it was your money (and you had half a brain) would you actually want to forgo the rental income because you are "just parking money"? Or because you thought it was a cunning scheme to get tax perks?

Typical Greens mentality. It doesn't have to make sense if it is other people's money.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 2:03pm:

Quote: If you are running a business and you are making lots of profit you might buy property to lower your profit to avoid tax and pick up a asset which you can sell at a later date when your profit is not high and pay less tax. You didn't answer the question. You didn't even mention rental income. If it was your money (and you had half a brain) would you actually want to forgo the rental income because you are "just parking money"? Or because you thought it was a cunning scheme to get tax perks? Typical Greens mentality. It doesn't have to make sense if it is other people's money.

What is wrong with you, I just showed you how people can buy a property for the tax advantage. Renting a property is not just sit back and wait for the money and some people can earn far more with their time than renting out a property. If you are running a large business that requires your full time attention you don't want to have to worry about leases, tenants and all the other stuff that goes with being a landlord.

Its a stupid solution to a non existent problem, charge them 2% tax and they then claim that 2% tax at the end of the year. It just does not make sense.

If I'm a greenie

Quote:

What is wrong with you, I just showed you how people can buy a property for the tax advantage.

Obviously you have to buy it to rent it out. But that doesn't actually answer the question, does it? Let me demonstrate how to give a straight answer:

If I owned a rental property, I would/would not deliberately forgo the rental income because...

This is my answer:

If I owned a rental property, I would not deliberately forgo the rental income because I am not an idiot.

Would you like to have a go?

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 2:03pm:

Quote: If you are running a business and you are making lots of profit you might buy property to lower your profit to avoid tax and pick up a asset which you can sell at a later date when your profit is not high and pay less tax. You didn't answer the question. You didn't even mention rental income. If it was your money (and you had half a brain) would you actually want to forgo the rental income because you are "just parking money"? Or because you thought it was a cunning scheme to get tax perks? Typical Greens mentality. It doesn't have to make sense if it is other people's money.

It is my money and its exactly what I have done. I don't want the hassles of a tenant, I've had 30 years of that its not fun. If I was 30 again I would be squeezing every last dollar out it.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 2:21pm:

Quote: What is wrong with you, I just showed you how people can buy a property for the tax advantage. Obviously you have to buy it to rent it out. But that doesn't actually answer the question, does it? Let me demonstrate how to give a straight answer: If I owned a rental property, I would/would not deliberately forgo the rental income because... This is my answer: If I owned a rental property, I would not deliberately forgo the rental income because I am not an idiot. Would you like to have a go?

What arrogance.

My wife and I worked our butts off to be in a position we could have spare money and back up if required. We have done our work and do not wish to keep trying to get every penny we can. We are happy to just have our money parked somewhere and not have to worry anymore.

And you think you can call me an idiot for doing that, well bugger you pal.

Leroy wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 2:26pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 2:21pm: Quote: What is wrong with you, I just showed you how people can buy a property for the tax advantage. Obviously you have to buy it to rent it out. But that doesn't actually answer the question, does it? Let me demonstrate how to give a straight answer: If I owned a rental property, I would/would not deliberately forgo the rental income because... This is my answer: If I owned a rental property, I would not deliberately forgo the rental income because I am not an idiot. Would you like to have a go? What arrogance. My wife and I worked our butts off to be in a position we could have spare money and back up if required. We have done our work and do not wish to keep trying to get every penny we can. We are happy to just have our money parked somewhere and not have to worry anymore. And you think you can call me an idiot for doing that, well bugger you pal.

Yes - I know 2 landlords who both had to pay out around $22,000
to fix up their places after they rented them out.
They actually made a loss on their rentals.
In one case there were dog turds imbedded in the carpet and considerable damage.
All the carpets had to be replaced in both and a lot more than that.

One sold his place after fixing it up and the other is still holding on to it without renting it out
as it wasn't worth allowing it to be wrecked again by tenants.
Now the Victorian Govt wants land tax for unoccupied houses so he might sell it now.

Leroy wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 2:26pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 2:21pm: Quote: What is wrong with you, I just showed you how people can buy a property for the tax advantage. Obviously you have to buy it to rent it out. But that doesn't actually answer the question, does it? Let me demonstrate how to give a straight answer: If I owned a rental property, I would/would not deliberately forgo the rental income because... This is my answer: If I owned a rental property, I would not deliberately forgo the rental income because I am not an idiot. Would you like to have a go? What arrogance. My wife and I worked our butts off to be in a position we could have spare money and back up if required. We have done our work and do not wish to keep trying to get every penny we can. We are happy to just have our money parked somewhere and not have to worry anymore. And you think you can call me an idiot for doing that, well bugger you pal.

I stand corrected. You should vote Green, so they can tax you for choosing not to rent out your property.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 3:03pm:

I stand corrected. You should vote Green, so they can tax you for choosing not to rent out your property.

Call it whatever you want:
communism, socialism, Marxism -

under those principles you don't really own any property -
the state owns it -
under Stalin - the communists actually stole your entire property
and gave it to "deserving" communist party officials.
The highest officials would live in the largest mansions while their real owners were sent to the Gulags.

It's been watered down now so that you pay rent to live on your "own" property.
A farmer friend of mine was charged $3,500 for water landing on his own property by a rural council
during a drought in 2007 when there was no water.
People in large waterfront properties pay enormous rates
and so does any business in a prime area - St Kilda waterfront etc.
Many councilors get very rich out of it - you know "party" officials.

Most empty shops get torched.
It's the Community's way of saying "Use it or lose it"

Jasin wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 3:49pm:

Most empty shops get torched. It's the Community's way of saying "Use it or lose it"

Or druggies move in and use it as a crack house or heroin haven.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2025 at 3:03pm:

Leroy wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 2:26pm: freediver wrote on Jan 29th, 2025 at 2:21pm: Quote: What is wrong with you, I just showed you how people can buy a property for the tax advantage. Obviously you have to buy it to rent it out. But that doesn't actually answer the question, does it? Let me demonstrate how to give a straight answer: If I owned a rental property, I would/would not deliberately forgo the rental income because... This is my answer: If I owned a rental property, I would not deliberately forgo the rental income because I am not an idiot. Would you like to have a go? What arrogance. My wife and I worked our butts off to be in a position we could have spare money and back up if required. We have done our work and do not wish to keep trying to get every penny we can. We are happy to just have our money parked somewhere and not have to worry anymore. And you think you can call me an idiot for doing that, well bugger you pal. I stand corrected. You should vote Green, so they can tax you for choosing not to rent out your property.

even when you have someone on here who has told you they have done exactly what you claim no one does, you just keep digging that hole you are in .. ;D ;D ;D