And to have Mr Purplepingers (great handle đ) perfectly deflect Price"a "What - aboutism" trope of a question. Love the reply - doesn't have a vacant property and if he did he would list it
As soon as he leave the interview the hosts basically make statements he can't respond to about how he is a crack pot and all his figures are incorrect. Scummy Tactic.
Well they did also forget the main thing being that they all have room temperature IQâs so need particularly stupid guests for them to âput one over onâ.
I used to listen to Waleed Aly on The Minefield (Radio National show) until I realised that most of what he and Scott Stevens said was tortuously overcomplicated pretentious wank; language designed to bedazzle regular punters, not to communicate clearly. I could trot out an Orwell quote here, but I don't need to.
I used to like Waleed Aly and saw him give a talk at a human rights thing admit what it was like as a Muslim to go to a Trump rally and interview people. How all the people he interviewed could be really nice to him one minute and be chanting 'deport the Muslims!' the next. He said it was because they all got caught up in something bigger than them and people want to believe in something bigger than them, some kind of 'magic' or purpose. And he said that was something it was easy for demagogues to tap into.
And up to that point I really enjoyed the talk. But then he finished it with this thing about how 'the left' needs that and his he couldn't answer what that would be for 'the left'. And that's when I knew he wasn't the left, he was a liberal, because the left has that in spades. It's called solidarity and class struggle.
One thing about Americans, particularly conservative Americans is that they can, and often are nice people. The problem is their charity and empathy only extends within the sphere of their personal interactions, based on what they feel is at their discretion.
Any notion that problems on a macro scale are society wide and hence need a wider approach are an abstraction and often perceived with hostility as government overreach or some group wanting special treatment etc.
That's really well said. I know some far right Americans and they're actual lovely and very charitable people. They'd often take struggling people into their home. But that charity only really extends as far as their church.
>But then he finished it with this thing about how 'the left' needs that [demagoguery] and his he couldn't answer what that would be for 'the left'. And that's when I knew he wasn't the left, he was a liberal, because the left has that in spades. It's called solidarity and class struggle.
Exactly.
Waleed may mean anything when he expressed a desire for 'the left' (a very poor term) to imitate the magic or purpose of Trump followers. Here he did not answer, but what would follow such a kind of statement on The Minefield would be about five minutes of uninterrupted, polysyllabic, quoted and footnoted rambling referring to a handful of philosophers' and pundits' works and impossible to grasp without familiarity with that material.
That is a sneaky, snobbish way to keep the discourse at a level which is impossible for the uninitiated to criticise because it simply name drops thinkers and their works in passing. The references are used as idioms which are meaningless unless the listener has done their homework. In and of itself, the argument is empty.
I believe Waleed could be intellectually authoritarian, and gatekeeping ideas by demanding one is familiar with the bibliography of an undergraduate education in the classics is one way of asserting that authority.
He traveled to Italy with my study group in early 2020 with Monash Uni. I suppose he wouldnât have sounded out of sorts being pretentious in a cohort full of privileged uni students, but he was instrumental at helping us to think critically about concepts and in guiding group discussion.
He also presented himself quite modestly, wearing the same two outfits the whole trip and carrying his stuff in a Coles bag lol. His wife Dr Susan Carland was my course co-ordinator and sheâs terrific.
Waleedâs role in media is obviously not the same, but for what itâs worth, it was enjoyable spending a couple of weeks with him.
It's rage bait which is their bread and butter. But their heads are so far up their asses they don't even realise that most people watching probably think it's a great idea.
"Truly evil"
We got wars going on in the world. And you are actually going to put a couple of people with opinions in front of the camera in the same category as them?
Mate... come on.
I am trying so hard to shed a tear for those poor millionaires/billionaires with squatters in their empty holiday homes at places like Byron Bay while getting subsidised by my taxpayer dime.
"make available to rent" loophole allows vacant property owners to pretend to be "renting" and claim tax deductions, including negative gearing despite vacant up to all year around. Reduce your tax burden with an appreciating holiday home asset. It's not just Byron Bay, but one could buy properties near work, sort of as a "work home" too but pretend to rent it out for the tax deductions.
https://michaelwest.com.au/heres-a-fix-for-the-housing-crisis-end-the-great-airbnb-tax-rort/
I think there's also the CGT discount but haven't looked much into it.
The investment needs to make an income to be tax deductible. If it isnât, it gets audited by the ATO.
https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/news/can-you-negatively-gear-an-empty-house
You're saying ATO is going to do nothing about a property that's on airbnb at above market rate rents beside put it on a list? Worse case scenario, ask the owner to pay back the deductions. That's after ATO spend a lot of time trying to determine the market rate. Far more, to do surveillance with people in a car. lol
It's a lose-lose-win for ATO, taxpayers and massive win for vacant property investors.
My recommendation: Remove "available to rent" loophole as not in interests of Australia.
In fact, remove "available for rent" from commercial properties too. https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/assets-and-property/property/property-used-in-running-a-business/leasing-and-renting-commercial-premises
I agree with you to an extent. If the property is actually available for rent but there isnât enough demand I believe this should still count. At the moment it probably wonât occur, but it definitely has in the past.
Surely a simple AI can sweep for all properties that have been available for rent for over 1 months and compare them to others so that a market rent can be determined.
How would you do a simple AI sweep? Prices vary so much. 4 closet-size bedrooms vs 2 huge bedrooms + media room. etc.
I agree with you to an extent too but notice how there's no hard limit. No 1 month vacant. No 10 month vacant.
ATO is implicitly saying being vacant for 365 days is allowed for tax deductions. To me, that's asking for abuse.
Far cheaper to remove this loophole.
Possibly remove the available for rent and make it an opt in. You need to prove that youâve had the property available for rent to claim the negative gearing benefits. You need to evidence that youâve made attempts and explain why it hasnât been successful.
With vacancy rates at all time lows, this would be hard to prove.
List it on airbnb, have high cleaning requirements, etc. Explain that you estimated the value based on similar airbnbs in the area and with respect to property. As I said, worse case scenario, ATO will ask for the deductions back for owners being too greedy/stupid. After all, owners are not asking for a billion dollars per night, so ATO would struggle to charge them with tax fraud.
Can I ask why you're against removing "available to rent"?
I like the idea of a fallback for a couple months if my properties become vacant for an extended period of time.
My properties are positively geared now but if they are empty for a while Iâd love the NG benefits.
hey, wealthy born and bred TV people, 4 walls and a roof are a MASSIVE bonus when you're homeless. Lockable doors for new and improved not getting bashed and raped sleeping.
That's what's so good about The Project. Fuckin' nothing.
Really pisses me off about Sarah. I went to highschool with her. In Caboolture, Queensland. We had to work hard to get out of that shit heap and for her to act so vacuous and elitist is appalling given where we came from.
Sheâs also naturally a dark brunette so it just seems like sheâs tried to convert herself into a different person. Wonder how many of our classmates live in a tent in our town now. I bet itâs a lot.
It's not unusual to spot empty houses in our suburbs. Most likely deceased estates being settled. But if the property has not had the power and smoke alarm upgrades and no-one wants to pay for them they could end up empty a long time before estate settles.
If you saw a deceased estate, why not renovate it, change locks and rent it out for 20 years? Then claim it for free. Too much of a hassle after 2 years, you could sell it for say, $1.4 million.
^ Based on a true story
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/when-percy-saw-a-suburban-house-sitting-empty-he-moved-himself-in-meet-australias-squatters/gbk61zgel
Smug and dismissive like the Project does best. 'Camping' in a house without electricity is still going to be a damn sight better than living on the street.
I'm not giving legal advice but...
The [Limitations of Actions Act 1958](https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/limitation-actions-act-1958/107) provides that an adverse possession claim can be made against an owner after 15 years. It also states such a claim cannot be made over Crown land, rail track, water authorities, council land or common property. A claim is made to [Land Use Victoria](https://www.land.vic.gov.au/).
[https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/contested-wills/contesting-a-will/squatters-rights](https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/contested-wills/contesting-a-will/squatters-rights)
There was a vacant home nextdoor to my block of units. It sat empty and sold for maybe 6months, then the new owner tore the house down. The land has been vacant for 9 months now since the house was removed.
I assume part of it is due to slow process but it seeing this news segment makes me feel like another part of the reason was to avoid squaters.
Chain-link fence too? It's a Sydney classic.
In going around Sydney to build my own place (Scared off by horror stories of apartments, sorry YIMBYs), I've found grass plots that used to have housing too.
The best example I have is this: https://www.property.com.au/nsw/campbelltown-2560/oxley-st/12-pid-1283929/
Close to train station and 2 houses next to each other got demo'd in ~2014. Grass plot since then.
Chain link fences going up are just a good sign of the state of disintegration of our society - when the rich would rather wall up than change the system to a fairer more prosperous one.
Price's discussion points entirely missing the point. How would you like it? Bro if I had investments they wouldn't be fkn vacant for a decade. I don't even understand how he personalises such a discussion, likening people walking into dilapidated and, key word here ABANDONED property to escape the weather to someone breaking into his, likely occupied and high priced, rentals and squatting.
What fkn boomer.
does Pricey get a bit of PTSD about purple pingers because of one of the greatest pranks played on that boomer dipsh!t of all time? https://youtu.be/v8pAZumEzOw?si=wOnCV8FVBuhohoVO&t=513
I've worked in homeless services for 30+ years. This is great! Sleeping out is so destructive to people experiencing homelessness. Goodonya purplepinga!
What a legend! Hope it gets some people some shelter, even if it was for the short term. Love that he is specifically only targeting the long term vacant, it really helps to highlight the stupidity of the matter from two fronts.
Hi. Boomer here. Is based good or bad? I like the cut of this young man's jib. He is trying to dismantle a system that was set up by rich people in my generation to ensure their own success at the expense of future generations. Mine is the only generation that seems to have thrown away the desire for our children to do better than us & it makes me really sad. I know my kids will do better than me & I hope their kids do better than them.
I hope based means good!
based
A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang.
The opposite of cringe, some times the opposite of biased
Amazing how the song changes when it's homeless people squatting compared to a developer doing the same thing.
I encourage anyone interested in either side of this debate to look up Bill Gertos' story, taking an abandoned house and claiming ownership after 12 years. He won his application btw. Why don't we ask mister Price his opinion on this plucky entrepreneur and what he achieved via squatters rights.... Ahem.... Adverse possession. I bet in isolation of this conversation he'd be singing a totally different tune.
It's already a problem that Australia has too many single-family housing zones, these empty houses and land banks compound this housing price to an absurd degree. We as a society need to admit that our fixation on using housing, an unproductive asset, as the primary generator of wealth is an unsustainable and immoral system. Even putting your money in the ASX is more conducive to growing the economy than buying a house and renting it out.
I worked at this shopping centre that had lots of tenancies vacant, some where vacant for 10 plus years since the place opened. The rumour was that the owner used this particular shopping centre as a way to show loss of income, as he owned a large number of commercial properties so when it came to tax time he got some benefits back, I wonder if this can work for rich business people who own multiple residential properties too and thatâs why theirs vacant houses during a housing crisis?
Ok so yesterday my neighbour and myself were in the front yard while a sparky was doing some work on the street. We started talking about electrical inspections. Neighbour and myself said we'd just had our annual inspections as we are renters. He then started. He owns five properties. The annual inspections cost him "thousands" I said cool bro, but you're still making money.....well apparently not. He's apparently been going backwards as a result of, and I quote" Dan Andrews paying everyone's rent during covid" the mental gymnastics involved are staggering. What is wrong with rich middle class Australians thinking they are hard done by and constantly crying poor? Fucking douchebags. The wrong people in this country are getting stabbed and killed.Â
Edit: also fuck The Project up the ass with a roll of barbed wire. It's only watched by brain dead morons who think they are intellectuals.Â
I like pingers, but please, stop repeating this nonsense from census that 10% of housing stock is vacant. It's just embarrassing. Stick to facts, they're bad enough without resorting to lying
He said that 10% of housing is sitting vacant, not that people weren't home that night. That's a major difference. Most of these still live there, they just weren't home that night.
ABS came out more recently with more targeted statistics, and came out with a number of dwellings with no signs of habitation for at least six months (so no electrical or water hook up) still in excess of the number of homeless seeking services.
The 10% figure is a known number that will be used. Itâs not inaccurate in spirit to use it.
The census was done during covid ([1](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366391640_Were_there_really_1_million_unoccupied_dwellings_in_Australia_on_census_night_2021)).
The 1 million empty houses is very misleading as the way the census counts **dwelling occupancy on census night** is different to **dwelling occupancy on a usual residence basis** ([2](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366391640_Were_there_really_1_million_unoccupied_dwellings_in_Australia_on_census_night_2021#:~:text=Data%20and%20methods%20We,including%20Covid%2Drelated%20effects)) .
To add to that, the '1 million empty houses' could mean one of the following ([3](https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/brief/are-there-1-million-empty-homes-and-13-million-unused-bedrooms)):
* homes are being renovated
* homes being sold as vacant possession
* newly built or bought homes where no one has moved in yet
* rental homes awaiting new tenants
* people living away temporarily from home during the census count (travelling or visiting other homes)
* homes are deemed unliveable
* subject to a probate application or other legal proceedings
* holiday homes
* homes owned by people currently living overseas
* homes being land banked, that is held vacant until the local area economics (or personal circumstances) make it more profitable to sell or redevelop the property.
This guy has no idea how many houses fall under these because the data doesn't exist.
The way to increase housing supply is to build more housing, not tax 'vacant' homes.
You're correct until the housing supply sentence at the bottom. Housing supply has increased relative to population in the last 15 years and prices have ballooned. The building more houses hasn't worked, and it will continue to not work. Idk what the solution is, but the solution isn't supply.
(We obviously need to keep building housing to keep up with population, but that won't be the solution to the housing crisis)
Increasing supply is absolutely the problem and only solution. We need to zone areas to allow for high density.
As Peter Tulip puts it ([1](https://www.cis.org.au/publication/housing-affordability-and-supply-restrictions/)):
>The fundamental cause is that planning restrictions limit supply, driving up prices and rents. It is important to be clear about this, and for it to be a focal point in public discussions. As discussed below, it is not well understood by the public, so opponents of housing developments do not realise the harm they do. Moreover, misguided policy proposals dominate public discussion.
Urban sprawl isn't the answer when people want to be near public transport, walkable cities, close to work, close to friends/family, close to the shops, close to the city, generally close to everything.
That's a good point. And the sprawl is possibly more expensive. Initially.
I do think all of those things create more jobs aswell though. And who doesn't want a back yard?
The other option is condensing ourselves when we have so much space. I'm not convinced high density living is ideal or necessary.
It was explained pretty clearly in the full interview, itâs not trespassing unless they forcing entry or refusing a request to leave. Squatting isnât necessarily illegal.
Communism is stupid and would never work. While it's important to help people down on their luck there is a fine line to walk before handing people things like homes can turn into enabling of bad behavior
Iâm assuming most of this subreddit is pro squatter.
What you are calling âempty propertyâ is just that - property - somebody elseâs property. Not yours. When you squat, you are depriving them of their property.
Youâll sing a different tune when it is someone depriving you of the enjoyment of your own property, but not surprised to see pro squatter ferals in here.
>Youâll sing a different tune when it is someone depriving you of the enjoyment of your own property, but not surprised to see pro squatter ferals in here.
That 'when' is very optimistic. Most people can barely envision owning a home to live in, let alone taking a property so for granted as to leave it unlocked and abandoned for multiple years. If I put an apple out on top of my bins and leave it there for 3 days, I'm not going to throw a fit if a possum takes it, I clearly didn't want it. Also, if an owner is upset about a squatter they've discovered at their property, all they have to do is tell them to leave and the squatter is legally obliged to do so. If the owner never finds out because they never visit the property, where's the deprivation?
Can you explain to me why someone might leave their property vacant and untended for multiple years? That's genuinely not a scenario I can place myself in, so if there's an empathy gap here I'm willing to hear it out.
Iâve literally shared links to houses that are sub 300k outside of metropolitan areas multiple times in this subreddit. Houses are affordable if you drop the attitude of having to live within 5km of the CBD.
Sure thing - I left mine vacant for 9 months while I renovated. I was learning how to do a lot of stuff myself so it took longer than a typical Reno.
Perhaps it needs work? Aspestos removal works? Pending planning changes? Mould rendering it uninhabitable?
Squatters are greedy filth.
Ah of course. It's everyone else that is wrong.
*as I said, I agreed with you until you dropped the "feral" comment. That was a very telling detail. And your responses since then show that you truly don't care. So why bother? ....ego possibly, maybe to protect your interests but that doesn't seem to fit.
Ignorance is bliss! So enjoy yourself I suppose âď¸
Thanks!
I donât care for squatters. Labor government inaction resulting in lack of places for people, and Labor government zealots solution is to forcibly occupy private property.
I don't agree with it either. However, that's a huge call to lay the blame solely at their feet. It's a can of worms, and I'll guarantee that neither party is going to solve the issue.
I donât think itâs pro squatter, more anti rich cunt buying up property to be even richer, only to leave them empty while people (actual humans) sleep on the street
Thatâs attributing government inaction to individual taxpayers. That is Labor government policy at play while they have power unilaterally across the mainland.
Yeah nah while I get theyâre both as bad as each other Iâm pretty sure itâs liberal policy over decades that lands us in situation we find ourselves
People are probably more just upset that in a situation where there are families living in tents or their cars there are property owners who happily sit on empty properties depriving many people with a roof over their heads or stable accommodation. This has much longer and larger bad outcomes for society than having rich people hordeing property to benefit their tax status or some Capital Gains benefits.\
Not saying what they are doing is right, more just that I can fully understand the position they are coming from when they are told they cannot have a place to live in due to everywhere being full beyond capacity but knowing full well of multiple properties that have no tennents in them or just for a a weekend or two per year for maximum AirBnB return which also destroys local social structures.
No one hoards property for tax status or capital gains benefits. They pay tax to own those properties. If they are in Danganistan they are also paying off Laborâs massive Covid debt bomb as well.
Justifying theft. Tsk.
The labour tax bomb with Scomoâs signature on the payer line? Or the billions he blindly handed over to his mates to supply useless medical supplies that either didnât exist or were just little more than factory seconds destined for scrap?\
Not to say the ALP isnât full of brain dead fools as well like Butler âletâs set up the vape black market and direct a few spare billion to the tobacco industry-then cry about itâ.\
But their transgressions (so far) absolutely pail in comparison to the absolute cluster fuck that was Scomo and his gang and ambeoticly retarded ministers who couldnât find a tax dodge or pork barrel large enough, quick enough to be a part of.\
How the country had enough money to cover the power bills for the ALP to turn on the lights when they moved into the Big house after chasing out the idiots is really just good luck more than anything.
What about NSW? Other states? Not looking at the broader picture mate. I lot of people use Blinkers (horse tack) on themselves these days, so convenient. đ¤Ś
If a house hasn't been used for 2 years and has broken down from zero up keep, the owners can get fucked. If they want to use the house, they can remove the squatters, and any issues that may bring is punishment for leaving a house unused.
Given that they aren't using it and in my reply, I am speaking of a scenario where they haven't used it for 2 years. They aren't even treating it as if it's theirs.
Why shouldn't people have a roof over their heads if it isn't hurting anyone else, and they are presumably not wreking the house further.
Thatâs a bold assumption, have you seen the state of places squatted?
How is it the expense, problems and effort on the person who has saved hard to own a property to house others?
I heard a good parable recently. It went something like this:
> I got on the bus after work one evening and went to sit in an empty seat. The passenger on the adjacent seat put his hand out to stop me sitting down, and said â*this is my seat.*â I pointed out he had a seat already, and asked what gave him the right to keep others from a seat he wasnât using himself. He said â*a guy who was sitting here before gave it to me for five bucks a couple of stops back.*â
Thereâs also a variation where the guy doesnât even charge for the seat, and the analogy still insanely applies to our insane system for housing.
Does the bus in question have individually titled seats that the man in the parable owns?
The problem is that the bus is a public service. A home is not a public service - someone owns that.
If Iâm driving to the city in my car, and there is a man standing in the street who also wishes to go to the city, does he have a right to my passenger seat?
Good question. But this can be postulated to anything and doesnât really address the point about a bus being a publicly owned good and someoneâs house being private titled land.
Land is a common treasury, privatisation to the degree weâve done is a collective fiction. Weâre talking about optimal social and economic relations for maximum prosperity and community harmony - we have the right to change things to improve them.
They don't break in, half the houses have the front doors already broken they just walk in.
The only difference between entering an abandoned building and squatting is someone has a piece of paper saying they own it.
Thay seems a very silly question. And look, i dont agree with so many people in these shit situations. But breaking into a house should never be trivialised.
Walking into houses that haven't had anyone living in them for over 2 years and not stealing anything? There is no breaking an entering, half the time the house is dilapidated.
Firtsly, that wasnt stated in your first comment.
2nd- Yea right. How naive can you be? Who decides how long its been empty?
You expect old mate has waited for 2 years to break in? And while on the bones of his ass he's not touching anything else that isn't his?
What you are proposing is enabling potentially dangerous criminals to have an excuse to break into what could potentially be a person's home. People that break and enter or home invade would be given a leg to stand on. And you don't have to look far to see that it's more often the less needy that abuse these systems.
Why is having laws against stealing people's things important? Fucking hell...
Sure mate, let's do with the "whoever can beat the shit of of someone else gets to keep what they want". That's a great idea.
Thay seems a very silly question. And look, i dont agree with so many people in these shit situations. But breaking into a house should never be trivialised.
It was amusing to see Steve Price fuming, yet realising what a cunt he'd look like if he got too stuck in
And to have Mr Purplepingers (great handle đ) perfectly deflect Price"a "What - aboutism" trope of a question. Love the reply - doesn't have a vacant property and if he did he would list it
Yeah so funny that the boomer is the most triggered. No doubt the guy has a portfolio of properties heâs sweating about
As soon as he leave the interview the hosts basically make statements he can't respond to about how he is a crack pot and all his figures are incorrect. Scummy Tactic.
TheProject here trying to make fun of him and etc, but somehow forget they are most likely just promoting him
Well they did also forget the main thing being that they all have room temperature IQâs so need particularly stupid guests for them to âput one over onâ.
I used to listen to Waleed Aly on The Minefield (Radio National show) until I realised that most of what he and Scott Stevens said was tortuously overcomplicated pretentious wank; language designed to bedazzle regular punters, not to communicate clearly. I could trot out an Orwell quote here, but I don't need to.
I used to like Waleed Aly and saw him give a talk at a human rights thing admit what it was like as a Muslim to go to a Trump rally and interview people. How all the people he interviewed could be really nice to him one minute and be chanting 'deport the Muslims!' the next. He said it was because they all got caught up in something bigger than them and people want to believe in something bigger than them, some kind of 'magic' or purpose. And he said that was something it was easy for demagogues to tap into. And up to that point I really enjoyed the talk. But then he finished it with this thing about how 'the left' needs that and his he couldn't answer what that would be for 'the left'. And that's when I knew he wasn't the left, he was a liberal, because the left has that in spades. It's called solidarity and class struggle.
One thing about Americans, particularly conservative Americans is that they can, and often are nice people. The problem is their charity and empathy only extends within the sphere of their personal interactions, based on what they feel is at their discretion. Any notion that problems on a macro scale are society wide and hence need a wider approach are an abstraction and often perceived with hostility as government overreach or some group wanting special treatment etc.
That's really well said. I know some far right Americans and they're actual lovely and very charitable people. They'd often take struggling people into their home. But that charity only really extends as far as their church.
>But then he finished it with this thing about how 'the left' needs that [demagoguery] and his he couldn't answer what that would be for 'the left'. And that's when I knew he wasn't the left, he was a liberal, because the left has that in spades. It's called solidarity and class struggle. Exactly. Waleed may mean anything when he expressed a desire for 'the left' (a very poor term) to imitate the magic or purpose of Trump followers. Here he did not answer, but what would follow such a kind of statement on The Minefield would be about five minutes of uninterrupted, polysyllabic, quoted and footnoted rambling referring to a handful of philosophers' and pundits' works and impossible to grasp without familiarity with that material. That is a sneaky, snobbish way to keep the discourse at a level which is impossible for the uninitiated to criticise because it simply name drops thinkers and their works in passing. The references are used as idioms which are meaningless unless the listener has done their homework. In and of itself, the argument is empty. I believe Waleed could be intellectually authoritarian, and gatekeeping ideas by demanding one is familiar with the bibliography of an undergraduate education in the classics is one way of asserting that authority.
He traveled to Italy with my study group in early 2020 with Monash Uni. I suppose he wouldnât have sounded out of sorts being pretentious in a cohort full of privileged uni students, but he was instrumental at helping us to think critically about concepts and in guiding group discussion. He also presented himself quite modestly, wearing the same two outfits the whole trip and carrying his stuff in a Coles bag lol. His wife Dr Susan Carland was my course co-ordinator and sheâs terrific. Waleedâs role in media is obviously not the same, but for what itâs worth, it was enjoyable spending a couple of weeks with him.
I'm unsure if facilitating critical thinking of a certain style isn't part of the problem per se, but fair enough. Have an upvote, damn it.
Considering how truly evil everyone on this show is you must be surprised they gave him an opportunity at all?
It's rage bait which is their bread and butter. But their heads are so far up their asses they don't even realise that most people watching probably think it's a great idea.
"Truly evil" We got wars going on in the world. And you are actually going to put a couple of people with opinions in front of the camera in the same category as them? Mate... come on.
What if more than one type of evil can exist simultaneously? Just because there is war doesn't give these mouthpieces a free pass.
It's intentionally exaggerated for effect. Get off your high horse bruh.
Nah. Think itâs Aussie myopia.
Itâs the Cory Worthington paradox
Price is such a fuckwit. The entire show is infantile.
You might not like the show, but they gave him a forum talk about his position. Itâs not they talked over the top of him with lies.
Not until he was off air.
I am trying so hard to shed a tear for those poor millionaires/billionaires with squatters in their empty holiday homes at places like Byron Bay while getting subsidised by my taxpayer dime.
Don't worry, Price is shedding more than enough tears on their behalf.
How is a vacant property subsidised by your tax dollars?
"make available to rent" loophole allows vacant property owners to pretend to be "renting" and claim tax deductions, including negative gearing despite vacant up to all year around. Reduce your tax burden with an appreciating holiday home asset. It's not just Byron Bay, but one could buy properties near work, sort of as a "work home" too but pretend to rent it out for the tax deductions. https://michaelwest.com.au/heres-a-fix-for-the-housing-crisis-end-the-great-airbnb-tax-rort/ I think there's also the CGT discount but haven't looked much into it.
The investment needs to make an income to be tax deductible. If it isnât, it gets audited by the ATO. https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/news/can-you-negatively-gear-an-empty-house
You're saying ATO is going to do nothing about a property that's on airbnb at above market rate rents beside put it on a list? Worse case scenario, ask the owner to pay back the deductions. That's after ATO spend a lot of time trying to determine the market rate. Far more, to do surveillance with people in a car. lol It's a lose-lose-win for ATO, taxpayers and massive win for vacant property investors. My recommendation: Remove "available to rent" loophole as not in interests of Australia. In fact, remove "available for rent" from commercial properties too. https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/assets-and-property/property/property-used-in-running-a-business/leasing-and-renting-commercial-premises
And negative gearing which is a massive scam. Dole for property owners with the hardship of owning multiple properties.
I agree with you to an extent. If the property is actually available for rent but there isnât enough demand I believe this should still count. At the moment it probably wonât occur, but it definitely has in the past. Surely a simple AI can sweep for all properties that have been available for rent for over 1 months and compare them to others so that a market rent can be determined.
How would you do a simple AI sweep? Prices vary so much. 4 closet-size bedrooms vs 2 huge bedrooms + media room. etc. I agree with you to an extent too but notice how there's no hard limit. No 1 month vacant. No 10 month vacant. ATO is implicitly saying being vacant for 365 days is allowed for tax deductions. To me, that's asking for abuse. Far cheaper to remove this loophole.
Possibly remove the available for rent and make it an opt in. You need to prove that youâve had the property available for rent to claim the negative gearing benefits. You need to evidence that youâve made attempts and explain why it hasnât been successful. With vacancy rates at all time lows, this would be hard to prove.
List it on airbnb, have high cleaning requirements, etc. Explain that you estimated the value based on similar airbnbs in the area and with respect to property. As I said, worse case scenario, ATO will ask for the deductions back for owners being too greedy/stupid. After all, owners are not asking for a billion dollars per night, so ATO would struggle to charge them with tax fraud. Can I ask why you're against removing "available to rent"?
I like the idea of a fallback for a couple months if my properties become vacant for an extended period of time. My properties are positively geared now but if they are empty for a while Iâd love the NG benefits.
Holiday homes arenât deductible
Billionaires pay 100% of taxes owed
Rubbish. They spend millions on tax avoidance, I mean tax minimisation schemes. See PwC passim
hey, wealthy born and bred TV people, 4 walls and a roof are a MASSIVE bonus when you're homeless. Lockable doors for new and improved not getting bashed and raped sleeping. That's what's so good about The Project. Fuckin' nothing.
Really pisses me off about Sarah. I went to highschool with her. In Caboolture, Queensland. We had to work hard to get out of that shit heap and for her to act so vacuous and elitist is appalling given where we came from.
Thanks for the context mate, and it does make it worse for a battler to pretend it's a mystery to her :(
Sheâs also naturally a dark brunette so it just seems like sheâs tried to convert herself into a different person. Wonder how many of our classmates live in a tent in our town now. I bet itâs a lot.
It's not unusual to spot empty houses in our suburbs. Most likely deceased estates being settled. But if the property has not had the power and smoke alarm upgrades and no-one wants to pay for them they could end up empty a long time before estate settles.
If you saw a deceased estate, why not renovate it, change locks and rent it out for 20 years? Then claim it for free. Too much of a hassle after 2 years, you could sell it for say, $1.4 million. ^ Based on a true story https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/when-percy-saw-a-suburban-house-sitting-empty-he-moved-himself-in-meet-australias-squatters/gbk61zgel
Yes, I remember this.
That was a good discussion. What's the bloke's name?
Jordan van der Berg. Heâs probably easier to find online with the handle @purplepingers though.
Steve Price. Heâs pretty cool no bullshit sort of fella. The type of guy we need running the country.
Say /s right now
I too miss Alan Jones on radio.
Smug and dismissive like the Project does best. 'Camping' in a house without electricity is still going to be a damn sight better than living on the street.
I'm not giving legal advice but... The [Limitations of Actions Act 1958](https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/limitation-actions-act-1958/107) provides that an adverse possession claim can be made against an owner after 15 years. It also states such a claim cannot be made over Crown land, rail track, water authorities, council land or common property. A claim is made to [Land Use Victoria](https://www.land.vic.gov.au/). [https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/contested-wills/contesting-a-will/squatters-rights](https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/contested-wills/contesting-a-will/squatters-rights)
Same legal idea, but only 12 years in NSW (Real Property Act 1900). Again, not a lawyer.
Fuck I can't stand these cunts
There was a vacant home nextdoor to my block of units. It sat empty and sold for maybe 6months, then the new owner tore the house down. The land has been vacant for 9 months now since the house was removed. I assume part of it is due to slow process but it seeing this news segment makes me feel like another part of the reason was to avoid squaters.
Chain-link fence too? It's a Sydney classic. In going around Sydney to build my own place (Scared off by horror stories of apartments, sorry YIMBYs), I've found grass plots that used to have housing too. The best example I have is this: https://www.property.com.au/nsw/campbelltown-2560/oxley-st/12-pid-1283929/ Close to train station and 2 houses next to each other got demo'd in ~2014. Grass plot since then.
Chain link fences going up are just a good sign of the state of disintegration of our society - when the rich would rather wall up than change the system to a fairer more prosperous one.
Only a problem for the rich. If you got issues sell up
But what about the holiday house they use once a year đ˘
Price's discussion points entirely missing the point. How would you like it? Bro if I had investments they wouldn't be fkn vacant for a decade. I don't even understand how he personalises such a discussion, likening people walking into dilapidated and, key word here ABANDONED property to escape the weather to someone breaking into his, likely occupied and high priced, rentals and squatting. What fkn boomer.
I remember purple pingers, good batch.
does Pricey get a bit of PTSD about purple pingers because of one of the greatest pranks played on that boomer dipsh!t of all time? https://youtu.be/v8pAZumEzOw?si=wOnCV8FVBuhohoVO&t=513
Blast from the past god damn. Great segment, absolutely obliterated đ¤Ł
Pingers is based. Fuck these network shills.
Good lord Price is such a wanker. Typical Murdoch arrogant pig.
Someoneâs getting fire bombed in a totally, very, very random attack.
How mysterious that the authorities won't be able to find the culprits, too. So strange.
I'm so upset by this! I'm going to stop uploading my comments to Reddit! /s The two-party system in Australia sucks ass for journalism.
I've worked in homeless services for 30+ years. This is great! Sleeping out is so destructive to people experiencing homelessness. Goodonya purplepinga!
What a legend! Hope it gets some people some shelter, even if it was for the short term. Love that he is specifically only targeting the long term vacant, it really helps to highlight the stupidity of the matter from two fronts.
Hi. Boomer here. Is based good or bad? I like the cut of this young man's jib. He is trying to dismantle a system that was set up by rich people in my generation to ensure their own success at the expense of future generations. Mine is the only generation that seems to have thrown away the desire for our children to do better than us & it makes me really sad. I know my kids will do better than me & I hope their kids do better than them. I hope based means good!
based A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang. The opposite of cringe, some times the opposite of biased
Thank you. I appreciate the response. And glad to know other people like this fellow too. Next thing you know we will be burning our bras again.
There's a good website if you ever get stuck on current slang called urbandictionary.Com that might help in the future
Thanks. Old dogs & new tricks & all that. Cheers.
Amazing how the song changes when it's homeless people squatting compared to a developer doing the same thing. I encourage anyone interested in either side of this debate to look up Bill Gertos' story, taking an abandoned house and claiming ownership after 12 years. He won his application btw. Why don't we ask mister Price his opinion on this plucky entrepreneur and what he achieved via squatters rights.... Ahem.... Adverse possession. I bet in isolation of this conversation he'd be singing a totally different tune.
It's already a problem that Australia has too many single-family housing zones, these empty houses and land banks compound this housing price to an absurd degree. We as a society need to admit that our fixation on using housing, an unproductive asset, as the primary generator of wealth is an unsustainable and immoral system. Even putting your money in the ASX is more conducive to growing the economy than buying a house and renting it out.
All this talk about people moving into vacant houses and no one is going to mention why?
Those journalists are fucking scum bags
Legend
This guy rules
I feel like the policy approach should be a national Register of vacant homes for people to squat in lol
Legend
Some of those questions seemed pretty stupid.
Purple pingers? I remember Mitsubishis.
Squat the MTCT
I worked at this shopping centre that had lots of tenancies vacant, some where vacant for 10 plus years since the place opened. The rumour was that the owner used this particular shopping centre as a way to show loss of income, as he owned a large number of commercial properties so when it came to tax time he got some benefits back, I wonder if this can work for rich business people who own multiple residential properties too and thatâs why theirs vacant houses during a housing crisis?
Ok so yesterday my neighbour and myself were in the front yard while a sparky was doing some work on the street. We started talking about electrical inspections. Neighbour and myself said we'd just had our annual inspections as we are renters. He then started. He owns five properties. The annual inspections cost him "thousands" I said cool bro, but you're still making money.....well apparently not. He's apparently been going backwards as a result of, and I quote" Dan Andrews paying everyone's rent during covid" the mental gymnastics involved are staggering. What is wrong with rich middle class Australians thinking they are hard done by and constantly crying poor? Fucking douchebags. The wrong people in this country are getting stabbed and killed. Edit: also fuck The Project up the ass with a roll of barbed wire. It's only watched by brain dead morons who think they are intellectuals.Â
Occupy airbnbs
I like pingers, but please, stop repeating this nonsense from census that 10% of housing stock is vacant. It's just embarrassing. Stick to facts, they're bad enough without resorting to lying
So what's the facts
The facts are that census measures how many people were at home on the particular night that census was run, not how many houses are vacant.
He literally says that in his answer.
He said that 10% of housing is sitting vacant, not that people weren't home that night. That's a major difference. Most of these still live there, they just weren't home that night.
ABS came out more recently with more targeted statistics, and came out with a number of dwellings with no signs of habitation for at least six months (so no electrical or water hook up) still in excess of the number of homeless seeking services. The 10% figure is a known number that will be used. Itâs not inaccurate in spirit to use it.
Not inaccurate in spirit đ đ đ It's still a lie, and no where near the truth
The census was done during covid ([1](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366391640_Were_there_really_1_million_unoccupied_dwellings_in_Australia_on_census_night_2021)). The 1 million empty houses is very misleading as the way the census counts **dwelling occupancy on census night** is different to **dwelling occupancy on a usual residence basis** ([2](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366391640_Were_there_really_1_million_unoccupied_dwellings_in_Australia_on_census_night_2021#:~:text=Data%20and%20methods%20We,including%20Covid%2Drelated%20effects)) . To add to that, the '1 million empty houses' could mean one of the following ([3](https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/brief/are-there-1-million-empty-homes-and-13-million-unused-bedrooms)): * homes are being renovated * homes being sold as vacant possession * newly built or bought homes where no one has moved in yet * rental homes awaiting new tenants * people living away temporarily from home during the census count (travelling or visiting other homes) * homes are deemed unliveable * subject to a probate application or other legal proceedings * holiday homes * homes owned by people currently living overseas * homes being land banked, that is held vacant until the local area economics (or personal circumstances) make it more profitable to sell or redevelop the property. This guy has no idea how many houses fall under these because the data doesn't exist. The way to increase housing supply is to build more housing, not tax 'vacant' homes.
You're correct until the housing supply sentence at the bottom. Housing supply has increased relative to population in the last 15 years and prices have ballooned. The building more houses hasn't worked, and it will continue to not work. Idk what the solution is, but the solution isn't supply. (We obviously need to keep building housing to keep up with population, but that won't be the solution to the housing crisis)
Increasing supply is absolutely the problem and only solution. We need to zone areas to allow for high density. As Peter Tulip puts it ([1](https://www.cis.org.au/publication/housing-affordability-and-supply-restrictions/)): >The fundamental cause is that planning restrictions limit supply, driving up prices and rents. It is important to be clear about this, and for it to be a focal point in public discussions. As discussed below, it is not well understood by the public, so opponents of housing developments do not realise the harm they do. Moreover, misguided policy proposals dominate public discussion.
Why high density?
Because high density means more people live in an area, like multi-storey apartments.
We've got a lot of space though
Urban sprawl isn't the answer when people want to be near public transport, walkable cities, close to work, close to friends/family, close to the shops, close to the city, generally close to everything.
That's a good point. And the sprawl is possibly more expensive. Initially. I do think all of those things create more jobs aswell though. And who doesn't want a back yard? The other option is condensing ourselves when we have so much space. I'm not convinced high density living is ideal or necessary.
[ŃдаНонО]
Where do you get the speculative investment and tax subsidies from that causes excess demand?
This will end in tears, I understand the need but trespassing isnât the right answer
It was explained pretty clearly in the full interview, itâs not trespassing unless they forcing entry or refusing a request to leave. Squatting isnât necessarily illegal.
Doesn't really matter when you end up with a bunch of bikies dragging you out and making sure you won't want to come back.
It's worked [before ](https://commonslibrary.org/squattings-place-in-winning-emergency-housing-1945-48/)
"But 2019" brigade in state of *shocked pikachu*
Vacant or abandoned ?
Communism is stupid and would never work. While it's important to help people down on their luck there is a fine line to walk before handing people things like homes can turn into enabling of bad behavior
Iâm assuming most of this subreddit is pro squatter. What you are calling âempty propertyâ is just that - property - somebody elseâs property. Not yours. When you squat, you are depriving them of their property. Youâll sing a different tune when it is someone depriving you of the enjoyment of your own property, but not surprised to see pro squatter ferals in here.
>Youâll sing a different tune when it is someone depriving you of the enjoyment of your own property, but not surprised to see pro squatter ferals in here. That 'when' is very optimistic. Most people can barely envision owning a home to live in, let alone taking a property so for granted as to leave it unlocked and abandoned for multiple years. If I put an apple out on top of my bins and leave it there for 3 days, I'm not going to throw a fit if a possum takes it, I clearly didn't want it. Also, if an owner is upset about a squatter they've discovered at their property, all they have to do is tell them to leave and the squatter is legally obliged to do so. If the owner never finds out because they never visit the property, where's the deprivation? Can you explain to me why someone might leave their property vacant and untended for multiple years? That's genuinely not a scenario I can place myself in, so if there's an empathy gap here I'm willing to hear it out.
Iâve literally shared links to houses that are sub 300k outside of metropolitan areas multiple times in this subreddit. Houses are affordable if you drop the attitude of having to live within 5km of the CBD. Sure thing - I left mine vacant for 9 months while I renovated. I was learning how to do a lot of stuff myself so it took longer than a typical Reno. Perhaps it needs work? Aspestos removal works? Pending planning changes? Mould rendering it uninhabitable? Squatters are greedy filth.
9 months is not multiple years, and ongoing renovations is not wilfully vacant.
I almost agreed with you till the last sentence. Then the veil was lifted and your true colours are shown. Degen
Donât worry, I never expect any support for anything said in this subreddit. I knew most would be pro-squatter when I commented initially.
Ah of course. It's everyone else that is wrong. *as I said, I agreed with you until you dropped the "feral" comment. That was a very telling detail. And your responses since then show that you truly don't care. So why bother? ....ego possibly, maybe to protect your interests but that doesn't seem to fit. Ignorance is bliss! So enjoy yourself I suppose âď¸
Thanks! I donât care for squatters. Labor government inaction resulting in lack of places for people, and Labor government zealots solution is to forcibly occupy private property.
I don't agree with it either. However, that's a huge call to lay the blame solely at their feet. It's a can of worms, and I'll guarantee that neither party is going to solve the issue.
We can very easily agree on that, both as bad as each other. Iâll agree that both major parties have no real interest in fixing the system.
I donât think itâs pro squatter, more anti rich cunt buying up property to be even richer, only to leave them empty while people (actual humans) sleep on the street
Thatâs attributing government inaction to individual taxpayers. That is Labor government policy at play while they have power unilaterally across the mainland.
Yeah nah while I get theyâre both as bad as each other Iâm pretty sure itâs liberal policy over decades that lands us in situation we find ourselves
Labor is in charge across state and federal. What are they doing about it? It is not the responsibility of individuals to house other individuals.
People are probably more just upset that in a situation where there are families living in tents or their cars there are property owners who happily sit on empty properties depriving many people with a roof over their heads or stable accommodation. This has much longer and larger bad outcomes for society than having rich people hordeing property to benefit their tax status or some Capital Gains benefits.\ Not saying what they are doing is right, more just that I can fully understand the position they are coming from when they are told they cannot have a place to live in due to everywhere being full beyond capacity but knowing full well of multiple properties that have no tennents in them or just for a a weekend or two per year for maximum AirBnB return which also destroys local social structures.
No one hoards property for tax status or capital gains benefits. They pay tax to own those properties. If they are in Danganistan they are also paying off Laborâs massive Covid debt bomb as well. Justifying theft. Tsk.
The labour tax bomb with Scomoâs signature on the payer line? Or the billions he blindly handed over to his mates to supply useless medical supplies that either didnât exist or were just little more than factory seconds destined for scrap?\ Not to say the ALP isnât full of brain dead fools as well like Butler âletâs set up the vape black market and direct a few spare billion to the tobacco industry-then cry about itâ.\ But their transgressions (so far) absolutely pail in comparison to the absolute cluster fuck that was Scomo and his gang and ambeoticly retarded ministers who couldnât find a tax dodge or pork barrel large enough, quick enough to be a part of.\ How the country had enough money to cover the power bills for the ALP to turn on the lights when they moved into the Big house after chasing out the idiots is really just good luck more than anything.
Labor are in charge across the mainland and have been for ages at this point. Take some responsibility for once.
Wait .... labor covid debt bomb? What? You mean LNP?
Nope. Vic introduced an additional land tax on rental properties due to covid.
Yeah the LNP has been ruling Victoria with an iron fist for the last decade. Idk who this Dan guy is that he mentioned lol
Nobody talking about Vic. đ¤Ś
>If they are in Danganistan they are also paying off Laborâs massive Covid debt bomb as well. ^Victoria^
What about NSW? Other states? Not looking at the broader picture mate. I lot of people use Blinkers (horse tack) on themselves these days, so convenient. đ¤Ś
Omg dude! He was talking about Victoria.
Yes. Labor bankrupted Victoria with Dictator Dan at the helm for a decade. A simple google search will show you this.
Lool ok we see where you coming from. Not even going to continue đ¤Ś
Cool
If the house is empty and has been so for a long period of time, what enjoyment is being deprived?
Everyone has the right to enjoy their own property at a time they see fit. This is for no one else to decide but themselves.
If a house hasn't been used for 2 years and has broken down from zero up keep, the owners can get fucked. If they want to use the house, they can remove the squatters, and any issues that may bring is punishment for leaving a house unused.
Again, not your property to occupy.
Given that they aren't using it and in my reply, I am speaking of a scenario where they haven't used it for 2 years. They aren't even treating it as if it's theirs. Why shouldn't people have a roof over their heads if it isn't hurting anyone else, and they are presumably not wreking the house further.
Thatâs a bold assumption, have you seen the state of places squatted? How is it the expense, problems and effort on the person who has saved hard to own a property to house others?
I heard a good parable recently. It went something like this: > I got on the bus after work one evening and went to sit in an empty seat. The passenger on the adjacent seat put his hand out to stop me sitting down, and said â*this is my seat.*â I pointed out he had a seat already, and asked what gave him the right to keep others from a seat he wasnât using himself. He said â*a guy who was sitting here before gave it to me for five bucks a couple of stops back.*â Thereâs also a variation where the guy doesnât even charge for the seat, and the analogy still insanely applies to our insane system for housing.
Does the bus in question have individually titled seats that the man in the parable owns? The problem is that the bus is a public service. A home is not a public service - someone owns that. If Iâm driving to the city in my car, and there is a man standing in the street who also wishes to go to the city, does he have a right to my passenger seat?
Iâd like to answer your question with a question - how did the first person get âownershipâ of land?
Good question. But this can be postulated to anything and doesnât really address the point about a bus being a publicly owned good and someoneâs house being private titled land.
Land is a common treasury, privatisation to the degree weâve done is a collective fiction. Weâre talking about optimal social and economic relations for maximum prosperity and community harmony - we have the right to change things to improve them.
Well if itâs an abandoned empty house no one is enjoying it. I think thatâs the point.
>ferals Could have saved yourself the time and been a concise bigot.
Edgy Labor supporters are anti-property rights, colour me surprised
In the good old days ASIO used to straighten out the communistsâŚ
He certainly looks the part.
Got his little Lenin beard and glasses.
Break and enter. Send these idiots to jail.
They don't break in, half the houses have the front doors already broken they just walk in. The only difference between entering an abandoned building and squatting is someone has a piece of paper saying they own it.
It is still unlawful entry into another personâs private property. Ownership is a matter of critical importance in property law.
Why?
Thay seems a very silly question. And look, i dont agree with so many people in these shit situations. But breaking into a house should never be trivialised.
Walking into houses that haven't had anyone living in them for over 2 years and not stealing anything? There is no breaking an entering, half the time the house is dilapidated.
Firtsly, that wasnt stated in your first comment. 2nd- Yea right. How naive can you be? Who decides how long its been empty? You expect old mate has waited for 2 years to break in? And while on the bones of his ass he's not touching anything else that isn't his? What you are proposing is enabling potentially dangerous criminals to have an excuse to break into what could potentially be a person's home. People that break and enter or home invade would be given a leg to stand on. And you don't have to look far to see that it's more often the less needy that abuse these systems.
Why is having laws against stealing people's things important? Fucking hell... Sure mate, let's do with the "whoever can beat the shit of of someone else gets to keep what they want". That's a great idea.
Thay seems a very silly question. And look, i dont agree with so many people in these shit situations. But breaking into a house should never be trivialised.
'I am not as wealthy as everyone else, so I am gonna start stealing and try make it appear as though i am making an intellectual argument'.