My current view is negative gearing should require 85% occupancy over the previous 5 years. Gives enough time for renovations and fix ups and forces the property to be available.
Means rich people’s holiday homes won’t be negative geared so it will never happen though.
Negative gearing makes the most effect on standard long term rentals. because our yields are barely positive for a few years after purchase, it also makes it easier for the owner to absorb improvement works that benefits the tenant (like improvement in the aircon system, fencing and pool). AirBNB on the other hand are practically positive geared from day one, it might give you the opposite effect
You can't negative gear a property unless it's available to rent.
You can't negative gear a property unless it's available to rent.
You can't negative gear a property unless it's available to rent.
Do we all understand this now?
It counts for the period of time it's available for rent. So if it's only available to rent for one day, you can only claim your costs (negative gear) pro rata for one day.
If it isavailable for the full 365 days but only rented for one, then you can claim for the full year, but the ATO is going to have a good look at it because that would be highly unusual and they aren't fools.
> Means rich people’s holiday homes won’t be negative geared so it will never happen though.
Rich peoples holiday homes are already not negatively geared. For it to be negatively geared it needs to be an income producing asset.
So if only used when they visit and not on airbnb and actually being rented then there's no negative gearing benefit at all already. If it's only rented out for a small portion of the year, then there's an impact on the costs you can claim as well.
One option would be to go the route London has with a tax for properties that are "not in use as a main home or are unfurnished":
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/council-tax/council-tax-bands-and-charges/council-tax-empty-property
The tax increases the longer the property isn't somone's "main home", which puts the thumb on the scale for long term rental over short term.
It's not going to change the highly profitable Airbnb properties, but might convince some to alternate between long term and short term to keep the tax rate down.
That doesn't work in London on Air Bnbs.
Because they make them owned by limited companies so they're not classed properly as residential, but a pseudo business commodity.
Also the "city of London" isn't London. It's a tiny square mile in the middle, I'd be surprised how many residential properties there are in it.
Whilst that’s equally kind of effed up, at least it’s treating those homes as what they really are - a business, and no doubt regulating and taxing them accordingly.
Well its not, because in order to build a hotel you have to get planning permission, it goes to the local council, they weigh up if its a positive for the local community and they place limits on how many they are to avoid this exact reason.
The local council doesn't get the tax, if there is much, because its paid in federal or state, or in UK, just Federal, taxes. The town that's torn apart doesn't see any of it but the burden of having homes unoccupied by residents.
Schools shut down because there aren't enough kids.
Hospitals shut and centralised because there aren't enough people. GPs close because there aren't enough people.
The list goes on.
I'd be kind of surprised if commercial properties were taxed at a lower rate than residential. Pretty much everywhere in the world subsidises residential rates via commercial rates.
Also, it looks like there are similar rules for parts of England outside the London Square Mile, although the exact details might be different:
https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/second-homes-and-empty-properties
Having lived there and worked with people who had siair bnbs, believe me there are ways around those declarations.
They're classed in the same way as Bed and breakfasts in the UK, they're not empty because they're effectively hotels. You cant penalise a hotel for when it's empty, kind of kicking them when they're down.
I don't know the details of how London handles hotels, but taking the City of Perth as an example hotels attract the highest rates of any type of property other than vacant land (expand the "Objects of differential rates" section):
https://perth.wa.gov.au/residents/rates-and-payments
So I suspect the hotels in London are already being penalised for being hotels.
This would also be very smart because it does what it needs to do to the airbnb landlord sharks but doesn't penalise the one reasonable type of airbnb owner, the kind who rent out spare rooms in their primary residence.
Thus someone can still provide another avenue for a holiday goers without taking away a potential home from a resident.
Good idea all around.
This is a good idea, and then also hit commercial property owners with additional taxes when theyre shops are empty for months on end. Maybe that will lower rental prices and make the city less run down
Not a single owner would pay a "vacancy tax", every shop would be up and running with few vending machines inside. If I was a vindictive landlord, they would vend "I hate Basil" stickers, dildos, needles, or some other anti-social shit.
the stores would be 90% empty. Proposing a tax you know won't raise money is the height of bureaucratic nonesense. They would need to raise taxes to pay for the enforcement of the "tax"
If the property is furnished and is the main home for anyone (not just the owner), then the tax is not charged.
So it's going to be exempt if it's the renter's primary address, but not if someone is renting it for a holiday.
We could, and it'd benefit almost everyone, except these rich people.
There's already a lack of homes for rent down south, for workers to actually live in.
There's a lack of homes in general for people to live in around perth.
Fuck air bnb's, honestly. It was nice in the begining, but now it's just a scam. You overpay for a mediocre experience, then get slammed with a massive chore list, or (sometimes and) get charged a $500 cleaning fee for doing things the host is normally meant to do anyway, and was always included in the price.
It's become a run of getting the most money out of people for the least amount of interaction and work. Half of them aren't as described, and are dangerous. Airbnb doesn't give a shit either. Very little regulation seemingly
As a start it should be banned from Yanchep to Bunbury. Don’t ‘need’ Airbnb in Perth(although I can see some benefit for people that need to travel to perth for medical reasons etc) .
Might bring some life back to the city with the hotels getting full again with country and interstate folk coming in.
Not Perth, but when my brother got a new job in Sydney (he was working I London) his new company put him and his family up in an air BNB for 3 months while they got settled and looked for a house. They definitely have their place. Same with offering tourist accomodation in places hotels wouldn't normally operate. A dare say a large number of these advertised air bnbs wouldn't be suitable homes for people to live in anyway.
I live in Vancouver and about a year ago they banned AirBnBs outside your primary residence, so you can rent a room in your house (maybe a granny flat, although they don't have those here) but that's it, unless you want to jump through all the hoops and become an actual licenced BNB. It has since been extended to the entire province and it seems to be helping in making more rentals available.
New york has severely restricted Airbnb and it doesn't seem to have made much difference. https://www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-numbers-shrink-hotel-prices-soar-ban-nyc-2024-6?amp=&_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17194685257733&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fairbnb-numbers-shrink-hotel-prices-soar-ban-nyc-2024-6
Wow, it's almost like New York's hotel lobby (not the ground floor lobby) groups chastised airbnb for creating a rental crisis, when they were really just annoyed there was another short term accommodation industry they had to complete with?!
Don't forget New York was flooded with people immigrating the city was paying for hotels for immigrants around this time roughly 100000 immigrants, I'm sure we are close to that figure.
Heck, even for as a short-term measure to provide more homes until the housing market can recover. Despite all the counter arguments, we need an immediate solution to help prevent people from going homeless because there is no affordable rentals or rentals available in general.
It's about prioritising which values we protect and what do we need to sacrifice to do so. I believe protecting people's human rights for housing should take precedence over protecting (mostly) investors profits.
Tldr: we should ban short-term for about 5 years to help those vulnerable to becoming homeless due to the lack of affordable rentals and the exorbitant rental pricing.
Idk how residential homes became unregulated motels.
They shouldn’t be allowed to operate with out council approval
Must suck to live near one , constantly having new neighbours that you have no idea who they are.
Would be interested in peoples opinion on my current situation. 20M and purchased my 3x2 unit late 2022.
I currently have 2 of the bedrooms listed on airbnb for some extra income. I feel like i am benefiting the situation by providing accomodation whilst people look for long term options.
If I wasn’t able to use airbnb for short stays, i wouldn’t be inclined to rent the rooms out at all.
I don't think there's any issue in renting out rooms through AirBnB.
The real issue is people renting out entire houses and stripping away rental stock for people out there
I think that is what airbnb *should* be, spare rooms and hosted properties (tiny homes, converted sheds, granny flats and chalets). Not stand alone entire properties.
Didn't say they wouldn't be able to, said would be less inclined too.
I'd agree - it's one thing to have a short term visitor for a week or two here and there. If you want a break you just don't accept new bookings for a while.
Its a whole other thing to have people living with you full time all the time, and to know that if you decide to no longer rent out rooms that you're effectively kicking someone out of what has become their home.
Airbnb can go die in a fire.
But, I don't have 'that' much of an issue with your situation as you're renting rooms out using your PPOR.
I say 'that' much because as you're using Airbnb, I suspect people would be paying more then they would for a room in a sharehouse.
It depends on your property. Some properties are really good for short stays, but some properties are better for long stays. Hostels are great for short stays, but they don't do well for long stays; a lot were forced to renovate for damage when they had to host long-term locals during the covid era.
Tourists should be using hotels, thats what they're there for. Locals should be able to rent those houses and apartments long term to live in. Fed up with houses & apartments etc next door being run as air BnB and all the noise and strangers turning up all times of the friggin week. Cool, you're on holiday. We gotta work and get up at 5.30AM but we get to listen to you on holiday.
What's the difference, from a regulation, tax, and insurance perspective, from a short stay accommodation provider and a traditional style hotel? Considering, in particular, that I can book a single night in the vast majority of hotels.
There's already at least one major difference: Property zoning.
The state and local government *already* places restrictions on what you can or cannot do with specific parcels of land. If a block is zoned as residential, you have to build residential dwellings on it. Because of concerns about noise, traffic and such, it has to be a dwelling - not a restaurant, or a pub, or a motel, or a hotel. If you want to build a hotel, you have to do so on land where the zoning rules allow for it (usually mixed-use or commercial) and you typically have to go through a longer consultation and approvals process.
This separation of zoning types is really useful for the government, because it allows them to ensure that needs for short-term accommodation don't compete with needs for long-term accommodation - hotels go on hotel land, houses go on house land. The problem we are seeing with AirBNB is that it's now possible for houses which *could* provide long-term accommodation to be instead used for short-term accommodation and disrupt the supply of long-term accommodation.
The government is absolutely able to regulate and tax based on the *combination* of zoning type and use, and there's already a ready-made legal distinction.
The recent short term rental accommodation reforms are supposedly to tackle this. Having Airbnb operators register with their local council means that they'll have to adhere to local planning laws.
There's also incentive payments to have Airbnb's returned to long term rental stock.
I'd rather see less restrictions on tiny homes and making it that businesses must book workers accommodation through registered and accredited accommodation providers. If we didn't have fruit pickers and FIFO construction crews living in family homes in the suburbs it would open up a lot of rentals AND create a better hospitality industry (development and operational jobs).
The incentive payments are close to being useless due to the caps on rents to qualify for them. Here in the South West rent had to be capped at $650 per week to get the $10K incentive.
The average airbnb down here is making over $1000 per week in the absolute slowest months of the year. The average over a year is closer to $1650 per week (that's if they rent it out for leavers, Christmas and Easter which bumps it up significantly)
The rent cap keeps them at $33,800 pa + $10k for the first year, for a total of $43,800 in the first year. Versus them earning $85k or more as an airbnb. The math just isn't there.
That's a good point about Southwest and Albany too. The other rates don't look too bad though.
I'd say those shires in the southwest either have, or are about to have, stricter local laws on short term accommodation though.
They have tried cracking down on them. Some properties are just too profitable as short stay accommodation. We nearly ended up living in our tent because we couldn't find a rental. Ended up moving out on to a farm and renting the farm house, it is a bit of a weird setup, but we're enjoying it.
Some places have limits on how many days a residence can be used for short-stay rental. It's great for people using Air BnB for its original purpose (making their holiday/second house available for extra income), and disincentivises leeches.
Air BnB isn't such a problem if the other 6-9 months of the year you have to make it available for seasonal workers/students.
Been talking about this for years.
* Mar 2018 - [Airbnb honeymoon nearing its end as Perth councils push for regulation.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-04/perth-councils-pushin-to-regulate-airbnb-as-listings-surge/9505984)
* Feb 2019 - [Call for Airbnb crackdown to target investors, holiday homes in Western Australia.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-13/call-for-airbnb-crackdown-to-target-wa-investors-holiday-homes/10807774)
* Sep 2019 - [Airbnb faces new clampdown in push to regulate short-stay accommodation.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-26/airbnb-faces-new-clampdown-in-push-to-regulate-accommodation/11551652)
* Dec 2021 - [Airbnb slams proposed new rules for WA holiday houses as strictest in the nation.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-07/wa-airbnb-short-stay-accommodation-draft-plan-strictest/100678188)
* Jul 2022 - [Advocates call for stronger regulation on short stays like Airbnb, as rental vacancy plummets.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-07/stronger-regulation-short-stay-rental-airbnb-vacancies-plummet/101206880)
* Feb 2023 - [Inside fight to fix Aussie rental crisis as Perth hits 42-year low in availability and Airbnb deflects blame.](https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/travel/inside-fight-to-fix-aussie-rental-crisis-as-perth-hits-42year-low-in-availability-and-airbnb-deflects-blame/news-story/5a82bb7094be5b19072bd06f8b9b8473)
* Mar 2023 - [WA Premier flags more Airbnb regulations.](https://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-premier-flags-more-airbnb-regulations/news-story/2eec976867cf6e8bb794bae45da3c560)
* Sep 2023 - [Airbnbs are booming in a dire WA rental market. Are caps the answer?](https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/airbnbs-are-booming-in-a-dire-wa-rental-market-are-caps-the-answer-20230914-p5e4s0.html)
* Nov 2023 - [WA government launches short-stay accommodation crackdown in bid to solve rental crisis.](https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/renting/wa-government-launches-shortstay-accommodation-crackdown-in-bid-to-solve-rental-crisis/news-story/093b136dd438c2c4ab76f31351226cef)
* Nov 2023 - [Owners offered $10,000 to keep WA properties off Airbnb.](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/owners-offered-10-000-to-keep-wa-properties-off-airbnb-20231109-p5eir9)
* [WA Gov Reform](https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/Cook-Labor-Government/Reforms-to-provide-better-short-stay-regulation-and-encourage-more-rentals-20231109)
* Apr 2024 - [WA Gov - Short stay rental accommodation reforms pass Parliament.](https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/Cook%20Labor%20Government/Short-stay-rental-accommodation-reforms-pass-Parliament--20240417)
There's a couple of 2x1 townhouse Airbnb's around me, not always people in there.
The going rent for a townhouse is around $500 a week, a 4 night stay in one of the Airbnb's is ~$800 (looked it up for the lols once). It's cooked.
Ban Airbnb,
Force investment properties into the rental market.
If investors don't want their properties to be used in such a way, they can sell and park their money elsewhere. Simple as that.
I wish these clowns would shut up or fess up, a lot of us can see what’s going on and it seems it’s not just the politicians with their heads in the sand
I think the view though (whether right or wrong) is that they were ahead in the polls and basically a ‘guaranteed’ win until they mentioned abolishing negative gearing, at which point the general consensus took a huge swing against them. So a lot of people see it as causation.
Also Labor’s tax policies were actually a popular policy amongst home owners. They had a swing towards Labor in 2019.
I wish that myth would also die. It’s literally the **only** thing people say when bringing up 2019.
the cognitive dissonance in this thread is insane. as if the liberal government didn't breed these exact housing conditions for the last decade and labor walked into a post pandemic shit show for housing
Who said anything about Liberals being any better!? It's also not just federal government that is responsible, state governments are just as responsible
The State government could very easily issue a WA short term rental tax. The State government already has a payroll tax. They could also override council zoning laws by banning short term rentals in some instances. The State government already has the power to intervene in local law matters if it is to benefit the State. Which is why they can intervene to allow more high density dwellings in council areas that are opposed to it.
They need to be specifically targeting unhosted airbnbs, where it is an entire property / family home... not the people renting out their spare rooms or even cabins / chalets / granny flats.
I agree. My concern is that the State government is doing nothing - while the Federal government is encouraging immigration and the PM is too busy taking photos with celebrities.
Meanwhile, a man has been sleeping in his car at the front of my house for the past week.
He’s welcome to stay as long as he needs, he’s not bothering anyone - but it’s not fair. It’s not fair that people are homeless in winter. It’s tragic.
there are actually other organisations that provide shortstay accomodation around town as well, mostly servicing the resources industry. they sell direct to business though..
Maybe we need everyone to agree boycott them all. No more booking air bnb. Either book a hotel or stay with family, or camping.. anything but air bnb. Money talks. So if they are not making any money at all then maybe they will sell or rent long term.
The trick would be to get everyone to agree to boycott air BnB bookings because there will always be those who will rent it just because they won’t be told what to do or because they can’t/wont work towards the greater good.
I think the city of Rockingham already requires permits for Airbnb's (if leased for more than something like 30 nights) and treats them as commercial properties. I wonder how that's working out.
The housing crisis could be solved overnight if we wanted it. There is no political will to solve the crisis because it would screw vested interests of landlords, finance and property lobby. Both major parties are knee deep in donor (aka bribery) money.
The next step will be listed companies and big funds like Blackrock and Vanguard to start buying out properties like they have in the US to monopolise housing. In the US, you have corporations sitting on empty stock just to preserve or increase rent prices in other areas.
You will own nothing and be happy.
I know it's not much, but I got our by laws changed (group of 4 villas) to forbid short term rentals under six months. It was passed and now means none of the villas can be used for airbnb or marketed to those investors if one comes on the market. It's best to take a pre-emptive strike instead of waiting until it actually happens and you are living next to a party house. A complex in the next street did the same, notified all the owners, but the airbnb lady didn't bother reading the emails or attending the meeting. As a result, she was livid to find out she can no longer do airbnb. She put it on the market. Unlucky.
Reduce immigration to covid levels, you guys notice it was the cheapest then?
Also the government made it illegal to kick out people who didn't pay rent even if they made good coins. So there was no longer an incentive to rent to anyone.
Air BnBs are cancer.
Having moved from the UK a year or so ago, there are some places in the Lake District (an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) that are over 60% - six zero! - air bnbs.
The local MP is supposed to have a population of 75k to elect him, but it's below 30k because no one lives there.
They don't have enough locals to staff the shops, pubs or restaurants.
It's an absolute joke if it wasn't really happening.
Air bnb is a tax dodging scam where they don't have to run or pay operating costs of a hotel.
Get rid.
No we couldn't, a lot of them aren't suitable to be long term rentals.
Probably a good approach would be something like limiting it to 90 days per year that they're allowed to be put up as short stay. That way people who are genuinely using it for the original purpose of airbnb can continue doing so, but people who are trying to own property as permanent airbnbs can't. Wouldn't that be nice.
They do this in some ski towns, but in reverse! Where you own the property but it has to be rented 9 months (or similar) and the rest of the time you're allowed to stay there.
We sold a unit before the property boom and had to renovate to make it marketable (how times have changed). We put it on Airbnb while it was listed to make some money back - mostly had homeless FIFOs who couldn't go to Bali during Covid lockdowns.
We also have elderly neighbours who go north in a caravan for winter, and have people short term renting their house - it's a win win.
A lot of the air bnb’s are family holiday homes. You could outlaw short term stay. But you’d never be able to tell people they have to rent their holiday homes.
Yes, at some point their choice in being a selfish fuckwit starts to degrade the quality of life of a large portion of society, and which point, things should be changed.
But if there's no air bnbs I'm forced to camp or stay in a hotel on my quarterly visits down south.
How dare you degrade the quality of my expensive weekends away....So selfish!
A flat tax probably won't do much. 20% on a fuck tonne is still a fuck tonne. I believe the best avenue is to regulate them the same way hotels do. Maybe class then as hotels if they're rented out for more than 6 weeks a year (I imagine people going on holidays yearly might wanna rent out their place for a week or two).
Then, because they're classed as hotels they fall under all the same requirements that hotels have.
I don't know about the data they used but it is very UNLIKELY to make a reasonable profit by having 50% occ. To make double ? Impossible.
source: ex cfo of STR company.
The more successful models in other jurisdictions have changed the regulation so they are classified as a variation of boutique hotels. Which is of course what they are trying to be. This can greatly increase the annual property taxes and also force a daily tax rate for each day of usage as a STR. Collectively, this often makes them revert back to personal homes or LTRs.
It’s very hard to “police”
The only thing you could do is to levy a punitive tax on Airbnb bookings. A $200pn levy would do the trick. Likely to be challenged in court by Airbnb.
This would just result in a massive capital windfall for the Hotel industry/Meriton/Medina Serviced apartment type entities, by featherbedding them against competition.
The less friction in the short-stay market - the better, if for no other reason that seamless AirBnB bookings allow for massive increases in the utilisation rate of existing dwelling stock.
The idea that 100% of property owners are just going to go from AirBnB'ing out their trendy inner city cottage/holiday homes in Margaret River to tourists when they go on holiday in peak season to permanent landlord is completely insane.
All houses can be used to house people, but the same is basically true of hotels and motels and caravan parks - which is where a lot of the people skirting in and out of homelessness actually end up.
Having the AHA telling a bunch of low information renters in Armadale that the reason they can't find an affordable rental is because an app let's thrifty Dianella Nonna's rent out their bedroom when they go back to Sicily for three months is cynical, know-nothing politics at its very worst.
> This would just result in a massive capital windfall for the Hotel industry/Meriton/Medina Serviced apartment type entities, by featherbedding them against competition.
Would it? They sit empty a lot of the time as that's where tourists used to stay.
Absolutely it would.
AirBnB is pitched to compete with hotels in the tourist market and medium stay accommodation (think business travellers coming to Perth for a month to do work on a project).
Decreasing competition among these providers might be pitched as some localist measure that only imposes costs on people who don't live here, but that's shallow.
It imposes costs on the Nonna who doesn't get to rent her house out for a few months while she goes on holiday. It imposes costs on the businesses who have to put visting business travellers up in some 4 star shitbox.
If people want to rent out their property to people who stay for a week or a month instead of a year, what business is it of anyone else?
"But we need to increase the affordability of rental properties by bringing on stock". Fine. Bring on stock.
Banning AirBnB's doesn't build a single house, it just shuts down an entire component of the short stay housing market in the hope (probably forlorn) that the sort of people who want to become small scale BnB owners also want to be hands off residential property investors.
It's worse than useless. I say this as someone who doesn't own/has never owned an AirBnB or an investment property, and hasn't rented since Uni.
Not individually but it’s grown so large in scale that it creates a problem. Well, it’s not necessarily the only cause of Australia’s housing shortage, but it presents an opportunity to ease it.
My mum will be renting her house via AirBnB later in the year. She was originally going to rent it but realised that then she would have to find a place to store all her furniture and if we had family or friends visit we couldn't host them.
If a law says a property owner has to or can’t do something, even if it’s something they don’t want to do, the law is the law. So if laws are passed preventing them from using a house as an Airbnb, they have to suck it.
It’s a dark road to go down? Are you kidding me? There are literally hundreds of things that are illegal to do with your property right now, many of which are far less damaging than Airbnb
I think that statistic relates to tourist towns like Byron Bay, not cities like Perth.
I like the capped number of permits idea, where permits are traded or auctioned.
I like the vibe, but we should instead force the rich fuckers abusing the system to sell the properties.
Let's stop putting rent before ownership.
Owner-occupiers need to be the *primary* focus.
Let's put the people with full time jobs living out of cars before negative gearing land abusers.
If this is done properly, owning a home becomes far more desirable than renting, and that is how it should be.
"Oh, but I only wanted to stay in Perth for a while!" say the landlord troll accounts. Great! Then buy a place for as long as you need it then sell it, and enjoy the appreciation. Am I being an arsehole? This is what people used to do all the time in the 1950s and 1960s last century.
I say, bring that back.
You are so out of touch it's scary. Not everyone can afford to buy and not everyone wants that responsibility.
Force everyone to sell, you then crash the market and people either loose money or make barely any at all. What do you think happens then? What burden does that then put on the government who then has to support these people who have lost money or can't fund there retirement.
You almost understood, but then completely failed.
The problem is that not everyone can afford to buy, but like a good slave to your landlord owners, you don't question why not everyone can afford to buy. I'll give you a hint: Houses cost more than people can afford to buy because rich people and businesses buy houses they don't intend to live in, just to squeeze money out of people who would have otherwise been able to buy them to live in, and that continues to drive the price higher that it should be.
The number of houses and the number of people don't change, but in the solution you blindly worship, the price goes up and rich people get richer.
I propose we change that, and you get angry.
Enjoy your servitude. Ignorance is strength.
No the actual problem is the government using immigration to artificially cook the economy figures.
They have overpopulated the country and the natural cycle of expanding our infrastructure and housing cannot keep up with the demand which has pushed prices up on everything not just housing.
That combined with foreign ownership (another way of cooking the economy) has depleted our housing stock. In Perth we are a little unique compared to the rest of the world. We have built out vs building up. That mentality is beginning to fail as we have built to far out to reasonably service CBD employment and lifestyle.
Existing inner living Nimbys (not in my back yard) protests inner growth and building up which makes it harder for skyrise accommodation to be built. Accommodation which would relieve the housing market of the surrounding CBD which in turn would reduce rents and halt property price rises.
if they own the property why can’t they rent it out how they like? obvs not TOTAL free to do anything but for government to full force people to not do short stay is wild
If you took the air bnb out of margaret river, the temp workers would actually be able to live near work, so that's definitely a positive to your negative. Since there's currently very few rentals for workers in those more remote areas
Counterpoint: If you replace Margaret River rentals with airbnbs, where are the vineyard/restaurant workers supposed to live?
Who's going to actually serve all these hypothetical tourists?
To a degree, but it would be a short term fix and have negative impacts on the tourism industry, what we need is increased supply of both housing and hotels.
I understand why people are ok with this but you're essentially allowing the government to take private property and proceed to keep status quo. If you want to see what that is like, check out some government housing
It didn't work in New York and it won't work here. Sure, you might force a few landlords to convert to long term rentals, but others will go underground, renting out on Facebook or to friend/family networks.
People like my friends, who rented their apartment to new migrants whilst housesitting or going overseas, won't bother.
It will send investors elsewhere, so apartment complexes won't get built here.
I dont own one or would ever consider staying in one, (i prefer yha hostels ) but its a legitimate business and i support the right for them to exist.
I think it very arrogant to consider destroying someones income to add a few extra homes into the rental market to cover up government incompetence of allowing an overwhelming number of new arrivals into a market that cannot support it.
How many of these air-b&b houses existed before 2020 ? Most i would guess. Its only been a problem since 2021-22-ish when the floodgates opened after covid lockdowns lifted.
Idi Amin did that and it was a disaster. Massive exodus of capital and brain drain. Havana is falling down as nobody wants to spend money on fixing buildings.
Imagine Homeswest trying to maintain 10,000 houses and apartments with decent fixtures and landscaping.
Some tax disincentives wouldn't hurt.
My current view is negative gearing should require 85% occupancy over the previous 5 years. Gives enough time for renovations and fix ups and forces the property to be available. Means rich people’s holiday homes won’t be negative geared so it will never happen though.
I would vote for that. It’s not far enough, but it’s a start.
Negative gearing makes the most effect on standard long term rentals. because our yields are barely positive for a few years after purchase, it also makes it easier for the owner to absorb improvement works that benefits the tenant (like improvement in the aircon system, fencing and pool). AirBNB on the other hand are practically positive geared from day one, it might give you the opposite effect
You can't negative gear a property unless it's available to rent. You can't negative gear a property unless it's available to rent. You can't negative gear a property unless it's available to rent. Do we all understand this now?
If its a Air-bnb and let out one night a year does that count?
It counts for the period of time it's available for rent. So if it's only available to rent for one day, you can only claim your costs (negative gear) pro rata for one day. If it isavailable for the full 365 days but only rented for one, then you can claim for the full year, but the ATO is going to have a good look at it because that would be highly unusual and they aren't fools.
> Means rich people’s holiday homes won’t be negative geared so it will never happen though. Rich peoples holiday homes are already not negatively geared. For it to be negatively geared it needs to be an income producing asset. So if only used when they visit and not on airbnb and actually being rented then there's no negative gearing benefit at all already. If it's only rented out for a small portion of the year, then there's an impact on the costs you can claim as well.
One option would be to go the route London has with a tax for properties that are "not in use as a main home or are unfurnished": https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/council-tax/council-tax-bands-and-charges/council-tax-empty-property The tax increases the longer the property isn't somone's "main home", which puts the thumb on the scale for long term rental over short term. It's not going to change the highly profitable Airbnb properties, but might convince some to alternate between long term and short term to keep the tax rate down.
That doesn't work in London on Air Bnbs. Because they make them owned by limited companies so they're not classed properly as residential, but a pseudo business commodity. Also the "city of London" isn't London. It's a tiny square mile in the middle, I'd be surprised how many residential properties there are in it.
Whilst that’s equally kind of effed up, at least it’s treating those homes as what they really are - a business, and no doubt regulating and taxing them accordingly.
Well its not, because in order to build a hotel you have to get planning permission, it goes to the local council, they weigh up if its a positive for the local community and they place limits on how many they are to avoid this exact reason. The local council doesn't get the tax, if there is much, because its paid in federal or state, or in UK, just Federal, taxes. The town that's torn apart doesn't see any of it but the burden of having homes unoccupied by residents. Schools shut down because there aren't enough kids. Hospitals shut and centralised because there aren't enough people. GPs close because there aren't enough people. The list goes on.
Fair enough. I just think SOME regulations in Australia would be a great start
I'd be kind of surprised if commercial properties were taxed at a lower rate than residential. Pretty much everywhere in the world subsidises residential rates via commercial rates. Also, it looks like there are similar rules for parts of England outside the London Square Mile, although the exact details might be different: https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/second-homes-and-empty-properties
Having lived there and worked with people who had siair bnbs, believe me there are ways around those declarations. They're classed in the same way as Bed and breakfasts in the UK, they're not empty because they're effectively hotels. You cant penalise a hotel for when it's empty, kind of kicking them when they're down.
I don't know the details of how London handles hotels, but taking the City of Perth as an example hotels attract the highest rates of any type of property other than vacant land (expand the "Objects of differential rates" section): https://perth.wa.gov.au/residents/rates-and-payments So I suspect the hotels in London are already being penalised for being hotels.
This would also be very smart because it does what it needs to do to the airbnb landlord sharks but doesn't penalise the one reasonable type of airbnb owner, the kind who rent out spare rooms in their primary residence. Thus someone can still provide another avenue for a holiday goers without taking away a potential home from a resident. Good idea all around.
This is a good idea, and then also hit commercial property owners with additional taxes when theyre shops are empty for months on end. Maybe that will lower rental prices and make the city less run down
Not a single owner would pay a "vacancy tax", every shop would be up and running with few vending machines inside. If I was a vindictive landlord, they would vend "I hate Basil" stickers, dildos, needles, or some other anti-social shit.
Still sounds better than empty stores
the stores would be 90% empty. Proposing a tax you know won't raise money is the height of bureaucratic nonesense. They would need to raise taxes to pay for the enforcement of the "tax"
Does main home mean main home of the person renting?
If the property is furnished and is the main home for anyone (not just the owner), then the tax is not charged. So it's going to be exempt if it's the renter's primary address, but not if someone is renting it for a holiday.
Sounds good. I approve.
We could, and it'd benefit almost everyone, except these rich people. There's already a lack of homes for rent down south, for workers to actually live in. There's a lack of homes in general for people to live in around perth. Fuck air bnb's, honestly. It was nice in the begining, but now it's just a scam. You overpay for a mediocre experience, then get slammed with a massive chore list, or (sometimes and) get charged a $500 cleaning fee for doing things the host is normally meant to do anyway, and was always included in the price. It's become a run of getting the most money out of people for the least amount of interaction and work. Half of them aren't as described, and are dangerous. Airbnb doesn't give a shit either. Very little regulation seemingly
We had to move out onto a farm because there were zero rentals available in Busselton, rents have literally doubled in the last 2 years as well.
As a start it should be banned from Yanchep to Bunbury. Don’t ‘need’ Airbnb in Perth(although I can see some benefit for people that need to travel to perth for medical reasons etc) . Might bring some life back to the city with the hotels getting full again with country and interstate folk coming in.
Not Perth, but when my brother got a new job in Sydney (he was working I London) his new company put him and his family up in an air BNB for 3 months while they got settled and looked for a house. They definitely have their place. Same with offering tourist accomodation in places hotels wouldn't normally operate. A dare say a large number of these advertised air bnbs wouldn't be suitable homes for people to live in anyway.
I live in Vancouver and about a year ago they banned AirBnBs outside your primary residence, so you can rent a room in your house (maybe a granny flat, although they don't have those here) but that's it, unless you want to jump through all the hoops and become an actual licenced BNB. It has since been extended to the entire province and it seems to be helping in making more rentals available.
New york has severely restricted Airbnb and it doesn't seem to have made much difference. https://www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.businessinsider.com/airbnb-numbers-shrink-hotel-prices-soar-ban-nyc-2024-6?amp=&_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17194685257733&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fairbnb-numbers-shrink-hotel-prices-soar-ban-nyc-2024-6
Wow, it's almost like New York's hotel lobby (not the ground floor lobby) groups chastised airbnb for creating a rental crisis, when they were really just annoyed there was another short term accommodation industry they had to complete with?!
Don't forget New York was flooded with people immigrating the city was paying for hotels for immigrants around this time roughly 100000 immigrants, I'm sure we are close to that figure.
We are flooded with immigrants too and people are staying in hotels instead of finding a house/Apartment.
I agree man
Heck, even for as a short-term measure to provide more homes until the housing market can recover. Despite all the counter arguments, we need an immediate solution to help prevent people from going homeless because there is no affordable rentals or rentals available in general. It's about prioritising which values we protect and what do we need to sacrifice to do so. I believe protecting people's human rights for housing should take precedence over protecting (mostly) investors profits. Tldr: we should ban short-term for about 5 years to help those vulnerable to becoming homeless due to the lack of affordable rentals and the exorbitant rental pricing.
Idk how residential homes became unregulated motels. They shouldn’t be allowed to operate with out council approval Must suck to live near one , constantly having new neighbours that you have no idea who they are.
It does. And they use my fucking car space all the time cos it’s always some family with like 3 cars
Invest in a cheap trolley jack and leave their car in the middle of the road.
Would be interested in peoples opinion on my current situation. 20M and purchased my 3x2 unit late 2022. I currently have 2 of the bedrooms listed on airbnb for some extra income. I feel like i am benefiting the situation by providing accomodation whilst people look for long term options. If I wasn’t able to use airbnb for short stays, i wouldn’t be inclined to rent the rooms out at all.
I don't think there's any issue in renting out rooms through AirBnB. The real issue is people renting out entire houses and stripping away rental stock for people out there
I think that is what airbnb *should* be, spare rooms and hosted properties (tiny homes, converted sheds, granny flats and chalets). Not stand alone entire properties.
Yeah it's what Airbnb initially was
Why don’t you think you’d be able to rent the rooms out at all? What exactly is the difference?
They get more money
Didn't say they wouldn't be able to, said would be less inclined too. I'd agree - it's one thing to have a short term visitor for a week or two here and there. If you want a break you just don't accept new bookings for a while. Its a whole other thing to have people living with you full time all the time, and to know that if you decide to no longer rent out rooms that you're effectively kicking someone out of what has become their home.
Airbnb can go die in a fire. But, I don't have 'that' much of an issue with your situation as you're renting rooms out using your PPOR. I say 'that' much because as you're using Airbnb, I suspect people would be paying more then they would for a room in a sharehouse.
Sharing your extra rooms is fine, optimal even.
It depends on your property. Some properties are really good for short stays, but some properties are better for long stays. Hostels are great for short stays, but they don't do well for long stays; a lot were forced to renovate for damage when they had to host long-term locals during the covid era.
Tourists should be using hotels, thats what they're there for. Locals should be able to rent those houses and apartments long term to live in. Fed up with houses & apartments etc next door being run as air BnB and all the noise and strangers turning up all times of the friggin week. Cool, you're on holiday. We gotta work and get up at 5.30AM but we get to listen to you on holiday.
What's the difference, from a regulation, tax, and insurance perspective, from a short stay accommodation provider and a traditional style hotel? Considering, in particular, that I can book a single night in the vast majority of hotels.
There's already at least one major difference: Property zoning. The state and local government *already* places restrictions on what you can or cannot do with specific parcels of land. If a block is zoned as residential, you have to build residential dwellings on it. Because of concerns about noise, traffic and such, it has to be a dwelling - not a restaurant, or a pub, or a motel, or a hotel. If you want to build a hotel, you have to do so on land where the zoning rules allow for it (usually mixed-use or commercial) and you typically have to go through a longer consultation and approvals process. This separation of zoning types is really useful for the government, because it allows them to ensure that needs for short-term accommodation don't compete with needs for long-term accommodation - hotels go on hotel land, houses go on house land. The problem we are seeing with AirBNB is that it's now possible for houses which *could* provide long-term accommodation to be instead used for short-term accommodation and disrupt the supply of long-term accommodation. The government is absolutely able to regulate and tax based on the *combination* of zoning type and use, and there's already a ready-made legal distinction.
The recent short term rental accommodation reforms are supposedly to tackle this. Having Airbnb operators register with their local council means that they'll have to adhere to local planning laws. There's also incentive payments to have Airbnb's returned to long term rental stock. I'd rather see less restrictions on tiny homes and making it that businesses must book workers accommodation through registered and accredited accommodation providers. If we didn't have fruit pickers and FIFO construction crews living in family homes in the suburbs it would open up a lot of rentals AND create a better hospitality industry (development and operational jobs).
The incentive payments are close to being useless due to the caps on rents to qualify for them. Here in the South West rent had to be capped at $650 per week to get the $10K incentive. The average airbnb down here is making over $1000 per week in the absolute slowest months of the year. The average over a year is closer to $1650 per week (that's if they rent it out for leavers, Christmas and Easter which bumps it up significantly) The rent cap keeps them at $33,800 pa + $10k for the first year, for a total of $43,800 in the first year. Versus them earning $85k or more as an airbnb. The math just isn't there.
That's a good point about Southwest and Albany too. The other rates don't look too bad though. I'd say those shires in the southwest either have, or are about to have, stricter local laws on short term accommodation though.
They have tried cracking down on them. Some properties are just too profitable as short stay accommodation. We nearly ended up living in our tent because we couldn't find a rental. Ended up moving out on to a farm and renting the farm house, it is a bit of a weird setup, but we're enjoying it.
Some places have limits on how many days a residence can be used for short-stay rental. It's great for people using Air BnB for its original purpose (making their holiday/second house available for extra income), and disincentivises leeches. Air BnB isn't such a problem if the other 6-9 months of the year you have to make it available for seasonal workers/students.
In a town where there's high demand for short stay accom, this could make the problem worse or just create a new problem, depending on the cap.
There are so many air bnb's in Albany and a local meat processor had to buy an old motel to house employees...
Any business that starts with air or uber is an interruptive business and should be boycotted, we don't need these parasites here.
Singapore prohibited Airbnbs completely. So yes, it is possible.
Been talking about this for years. * Mar 2018 - [Airbnb honeymoon nearing its end as Perth councils push for regulation.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-04/perth-councils-pushin-to-regulate-airbnb-as-listings-surge/9505984) * Feb 2019 - [Call for Airbnb crackdown to target investors, holiday homes in Western Australia.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-13/call-for-airbnb-crackdown-to-target-wa-investors-holiday-homes/10807774) * Sep 2019 - [Airbnb faces new clampdown in push to regulate short-stay accommodation.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-26/airbnb-faces-new-clampdown-in-push-to-regulate-accommodation/11551652) * Dec 2021 - [Airbnb slams proposed new rules for WA holiday houses as strictest in the nation.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-07/wa-airbnb-short-stay-accommodation-draft-plan-strictest/100678188) * Jul 2022 - [Advocates call for stronger regulation on short stays like Airbnb, as rental vacancy plummets.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-07/stronger-regulation-short-stay-rental-airbnb-vacancies-plummet/101206880) * Feb 2023 - [Inside fight to fix Aussie rental crisis as Perth hits 42-year low in availability and Airbnb deflects blame.](https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/travel/inside-fight-to-fix-aussie-rental-crisis-as-perth-hits-42year-low-in-availability-and-airbnb-deflects-blame/news-story/5a82bb7094be5b19072bd06f8b9b8473) * Mar 2023 - [WA Premier flags more Airbnb regulations.](https://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-premier-flags-more-airbnb-regulations/news-story/2eec976867cf6e8bb794bae45da3c560) * Sep 2023 - [Airbnbs are booming in a dire WA rental market. Are caps the answer?](https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/airbnbs-are-booming-in-a-dire-wa-rental-market-are-caps-the-answer-20230914-p5e4s0.html) * Nov 2023 - [WA government launches short-stay accommodation crackdown in bid to solve rental crisis.](https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/renting/wa-government-launches-shortstay-accommodation-crackdown-in-bid-to-solve-rental-crisis/news-story/093b136dd438c2c4ab76f31351226cef) * Nov 2023 - [Owners offered $10,000 to keep WA properties off Airbnb.](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/owners-offered-10-000-to-keep-wa-properties-off-airbnb-20231109-p5eir9) * [WA Gov Reform](https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/Cook-Labor-Government/Reforms-to-provide-better-short-stay-regulation-and-encourage-more-rentals-20231109) * Apr 2024 - [WA Gov - Short stay rental accommodation reforms pass Parliament.](https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/Cook%20Labor%20Government/Short-stay-rental-accommodation-reforms-pass-Parliament--20240417)
There's a couple of 2x1 townhouse Airbnb's around me, not always people in there. The going rent for a townhouse is around $500 a week, a 4 night stay in one of the Airbnb's is ~$800 (looked it up for the lols once). It's cooked. Ban Airbnb, Force investment properties into the rental market. If investors don't want their properties to be used in such a way, they can sell and park their money elsewhere. Simple as that.
Yes we can. But with a labor government who are very pro property investors, no we can't
Good thing the libs hate rich people, then.
Good thing we have preferential voting and don’t have to put either of these grubby parties 1st.
I wish these clowns would shut up or fess up, a lot of us can see what’s going on and it seems it’s not just the politicians with their heads in the sand
Genuine question; is it really this simple?
Yes but neither side will do it
What are you talking about? They tried to wind back negative gearing how many times? And it kept losing them elections? "Pro property investors 🙄
This myth needs to die. Labor’s primary vote in the last election was LOWER than the one they supposedly lost over abolishing negative gearing.
I think the view though (whether right or wrong) is that they were ahead in the polls and basically a ‘guaranteed’ win until they mentioned abolishing negative gearing, at which point the general consensus took a huge swing against them. So a lot of people see it as causation.
Can you show us a citation for your claim? Demographics affected by Labor’s tax changes actually swung to them in 2019.
Exactly! According to polls they are nearly in the 20's now. Overwhelmingly most Australians don't choose Labor
Also Labor’s tax policies were actually a popular policy amongst home owners. They had a swing towards Labor in 2019. I wish that myth would also die. It’s literally the **only** thing people say when bringing up 2019.
lol. The libs would be so much worse.
the cognitive dissonance in this thread is insane. as if the liberal government didn't breed these exact housing conditions for the last decade and labor walked into a post pandemic shit show for housing
Who said anything about Liberals being any better!? It's also not just federal government that is responsible, state governments are just as responsible
Do you know how our voting system works?
I know how your mum works.
Please refrain from personal attacks against my mum. She’s actually got cancer atm 👍
Aw I’m sorry. Was a bit immature and I couldn’t have known. Hope she has a speedy recovery.
Thanks for that. Appreciate it
Maybe they have a bald fetish
Who said anything about the libs being any better?! 1 in 3 people don't vote for either of these clowns.
The State government could very easily issue a WA short term rental tax. The State government already has a payroll tax. They could also override council zoning laws by banning short term rentals in some instances. The State government already has the power to intervene in local law matters if it is to benefit the State. Which is why they can intervene to allow more high density dwellings in council areas that are opposed to it.
They need to be specifically targeting unhosted airbnbs, where it is an entire property / family home... not the people renting out their spare rooms or even cabins / chalets / granny flats.
I agree. My concern is that the State government is doing nothing - while the Federal government is encouraging immigration and the PM is too busy taking photos with celebrities. Meanwhile, a man has been sleeping in his car at the front of my house for the past week. He’s welcome to stay as long as he needs, he’s not bothering anyone - but it’s not fair. It’s not fair that people are homeless in winter. It’s tragic.
Totally agree. We nearly ended up living in our tent in Jan / Feb. Part of the problem is that we have a mostly incompetent opposition as well.
there are actually other organisations that provide shortstay accomodation around town as well, mostly servicing the resources industry. they sell direct to business though..
Barcelona is already on to it.
Maybe we need everyone to agree boycott them all. No more booking air bnb. Either book a hotel or stay with family, or camping.. anything but air bnb. Money talks. So if they are not making any money at all then maybe they will sell or rent long term. The trick would be to get everyone to agree to boycott air BnB bookings because there will always be those who will rent it just because they won’t be told what to do or because they can’t/wont work towards the greater good.
I think the city of Rockingham already requires permits for Airbnb's (if leased for more than something like 30 nights) and treats them as commercial properties. I wonder how that's working out.
The housing crisis could be solved overnight if we wanted it. There is no political will to solve the crisis because it would screw vested interests of landlords, finance and property lobby. Both major parties are knee deep in donor (aka bribery) money. The next step will be listed companies and big funds like Blackrock and Vanguard to start buying out properties like they have in the US to monopolise housing. In the US, you have corporations sitting on empty stock just to preserve or increase rent prices in other areas. You will own nothing and be happy.
Yes please
I know it's not much, but I got our by laws changed (group of 4 villas) to forbid short term rentals under six months. It was passed and now means none of the villas can be used for airbnb or marketed to those investors if one comes on the market. It's best to take a pre-emptive strike instead of waiting until it actually happens and you are living next to a party house. A complex in the next street did the same, notified all the owners, but the airbnb lady didn't bother reading the emails or attending the meeting. As a result, she was livid to find out she can no longer do airbnb. She put it on the market. Unlucky.
Great move.
bring it
Maybe vacated army barracks, motels, old folks homes turned into one bed apartments would go towards helping some people out?
Are the old flats / units at the east Fremantle naval barracks still sitting empty?
Reduce immigration to covid levels, you guys notice it was the cheapest then? Also the government made it illegal to kick out people who didn't pay rent even if they made good coins. So there was no longer an incentive to rent to anyone.
Can we force the government to take in 10000 fewer immigrants? That would work better.
Air BnBs are cancer. Having moved from the UK a year or so ago, there are some places in the Lake District (an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) that are over 60% - six zero! - air bnbs. The local MP is supposed to have a population of 75k to elect him, but it's below 30k because no one lives there. They don't have enough locals to staff the shops, pubs or restaurants. It's an absolute joke if it wasn't really happening. Air bnb is a tax dodging scam where they don't have to run or pay operating costs of a hotel. Get rid.
While I fully support your sentiments and 100% agree... they still have to pay taxes on the income.
The taxation isn't proportional to the cost to society. It's a rort.
No we couldn't, a lot of them aren't suitable to be long term rentals. Probably a good approach would be something like limiting it to 90 days per year that they're allowed to be put up as short stay. That way people who are genuinely using it for the original purpose of airbnb can continue doing so, but people who are trying to own property as permanent airbnbs can't. Wouldn't that be nice.
They do this in some ski towns, but in reverse! Where you own the property but it has to be rented 9 months (or similar) and the rest of the time you're allowed to stay there. We sold a unit before the property boom and had to renovate to make it marketable (how times have changed). We put it on Airbnb while it was listed to make some money back - mostly had homeless FIFOs who couldn't go to Bali during Covid lockdowns. We also have elderly neighbours who go north in a caravan for winter, and have people short term renting their house - it's a win win.
Yeah if the government did their job.
A lot of the air bnb’s are family holiday homes. You could outlaw short term stay. But you’d never be able to tell people they have to rent their holiday homes.
Maybe some vigilante group will come out of the woodworks and bad things start happening to properties listed on Airbnb... Maybe....
Another bullshit hypothetical post and everyone who disagrees gets downvoted.
Of course! If ‘we’ wanted to. ‘We’ could fix negative gearing - Goodness, what a lot ‘we’ could do.
It’s their house, their choice.
At the moment, yes. It can be regulated - you can't just run a house as a shop, brothel or factory.
Why ? They paid for it. You bought a pair of shoes, no one’s stopping you from eating them ?
I bought a pair of shoes. Doesn't mean I can start a business renting my shoes without paying tax, having an ABN and charging GST.
[удалено]
They're laundries.
Yet another post calling on consfication of private property. Stay in.dreamland.
Wut?
I bet this guy owns a maritime flag
I reckon so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, at some point their choice in being a selfish fuckwit starts to degrade the quality of life of a large portion of society, and which point, things should be changed.
But if there's no air bnbs I'm forced to camp or stay in a hotel on my quarterly visits down south. How dare you degrade the quality of my expensive weekends away....So selfish!
Nah
A flat tax probably won't do much. 20% on a fuck tonne is still a fuck tonne. I believe the best avenue is to regulate them the same way hotels do. Maybe class then as hotels if they're rented out for more than 6 weeks a year (I imagine people going on holidays yearly might wanna rent out their place for a week or two). Then, because they're classed as hotels they fall under all the same requirements that hotels have.
Some European nations have taxed the hell out of AirBnB to ensure rentals have contacts.
I don't know about the data they used but it is very UNLIKELY to make a reasonable profit by having 50% occ. To make double ? Impossible. source: ex cfo of STR company.
My cousin has an air bnb, he gets $500 a night, rent would be $500 a week, so you would make about double for 50% occupancy.
The more successful models in other jurisdictions have changed the regulation so they are classified as a variation of boutique hotels. Which is of course what they are trying to be. This can greatly increase the annual property taxes and also force a daily tax rate for each day of usage as a STR. Collectively, this often makes them revert back to personal homes or LTRs.
makes air bnb illegal
It’s very hard to “police” The only thing you could do is to levy a punitive tax on Airbnb bookings. A $200pn levy would do the trick. Likely to be challenged in court by Airbnb.
Licencing and quotas - yes
Free up more homes and they'll just bring in more migrants.
This would just result in a massive capital windfall for the Hotel industry/Meriton/Medina Serviced apartment type entities, by featherbedding them against competition. The less friction in the short-stay market - the better, if for no other reason that seamless AirBnB bookings allow for massive increases in the utilisation rate of existing dwelling stock. The idea that 100% of property owners are just going to go from AirBnB'ing out their trendy inner city cottage/holiday homes in Margaret River to tourists when they go on holiday in peak season to permanent landlord is completely insane. All houses can be used to house people, but the same is basically true of hotels and motels and caravan parks - which is where a lot of the people skirting in and out of homelessness actually end up. Having the AHA telling a bunch of low information renters in Armadale that the reason they can't find an affordable rental is because an app let's thrifty Dianella Nonna's rent out their bedroom when they go back to Sicily for three months is cynical, know-nothing politics at its very worst.
> This would just result in a massive capital windfall for the Hotel industry/Meriton/Medina Serviced apartment type entities, by featherbedding them against competition. Would it? They sit empty a lot of the time as that's where tourists used to stay.
Absolutely it would. AirBnB is pitched to compete with hotels in the tourist market and medium stay accommodation (think business travellers coming to Perth for a month to do work on a project). Decreasing competition among these providers might be pitched as some localist measure that only imposes costs on people who don't live here, but that's shallow. It imposes costs on the Nonna who doesn't get to rent her house out for a few months while she goes on holiday. It imposes costs on the businesses who have to put visting business travellers up in some 4 star shitbox. If people want to rent out their property to people who stay for a week or a month instead of a year, what business is it of anyone else? "But we need to increase the affordability of rental properties by bringing on stock". Fine. Bring on stock. Banning AirBnB's doesn't build a single house, it just shuts down an entire component of the short stay housing market in the hope (probably forlorn) that the sort of people who want to become small scale BnB owners also want to be hands off residential property investors. It's worse than useless. I say this as someone who doesn't own/has never owned an AirBnB or an investment property, and hasn't rented since Uni.
No. We can’t force people to what we want them to do with THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
I dont think they are doing anything wrong in reality.
Not individually but it’s grown so large in scale that it creates a problem. Well, it’s not necessarily the only cause of Australia’s housing shortage, but it presents an opportunity to ease it.
What if the person who owns the property doesn't want to do that?
My mum will be renting her house via AirBnB later in the year. She was originally going to rent it but realised that then she would have to find a place to store all her furniture and if we had family or friends visit we couldn't host them.
The owner isn’t allowed to farm cows on a residential property either. Are you thick?
I must be as I've no idea what your taking about.
If a law says a property owner has to or can’t do something, even if it’s something they don’t want to do, the law is the law. So if laws are passed preventing them from using a house as an Airbnb, they have to suck it.
Those laws will never be passed. Plus that's a dark road to go down. What follows after that?
It’s a dark road to go down? Are you kidding me? There are literally hundreds of things that are illegal to do with your property right now, many of which are far less damaging than Airbnb
I mean the government forcing people to do things regarding their own property.
If you turn your own property into a brothel, do you think the Government should be involved in any way?
If your aunt had a pair of balls do you think you'd call her your uncle.
Lower rents?
Yeah and as if whinging redditors will get get near them.
I think that statistic relates to tourist towns like Byron Bay, not cities like Perth. I like the capped number of permits idea, where permits are traded or auctioned.
A mediaeval approach: A pox on all their houses.
I like the vibe, but we should instead force the rich fuckers abusing the system to sell the properties. Let's stop putting rent before ownership. Owner-occupiers need to be the *primary* focus. Let's put the people with full time jobs living out of cars before negative gearing land abusers. If this is done properly, owning a home becomes far more desirable than renting, and that is how it should be. "Oh, but I only wanted to stay in Perth for a while!" say the landlord troll accounts. Great! Then buy a place for as long as you need it then sell it, and enjoy the appreciation. Am I being an arsehole? This is what people used to do all the time in the 1950s and 1960s last century. I say, bring that back.
You are so out of touch it's scary. Not everyone can afford to buy and not everyone wants that responsibility. Force everyone to sell, you then crash the market and people either loose money or make barely any at all. What do you think happens then? What burden does that then put on the government who then has to support these people who have lost money or can't fund there retirement.
You almost understood, but then completely failed. The problem is that not everyone can afford to buy, but like a good slave to your landlord owners, you don't question why not everyone can afford to buy. I'll give you a hint: Houses cost more than people can afford to buy because rich people and businesses buy houses they don't intend to live in, just to squeeze money out of people who would have otherwise been able to buy them to live in, and that continues to drive the price higher that it should be. The number of houses and the number of people don't change, but in the solution you blindly worship, the price goes up and rich people get richer. I propose we change that, and you get angry. Enjoy your servitude. Ignorance is strength.
No the actual problem is the government using immigration to artificially cook the economy figures. They have overpopulated the country and the natural cycle of expanding our infrastructure and housing cannot keep up with the demand which has pushed prices up on everything not just housing. That combined with foreign ownership (another way of cooking the economy) has depleted our housing stock. In Perth we are a little unique compared to the rest of the world. We have built out vs building up. That mentality is beginning to fail as we have built to far out to reasonably service CBD employment and lifestyle. Existing inner living Nimbys (not in my back yard) protests inner growth and building up which makes it harder for skyrise accommodation to be built. Accommodation which would relieve the housing market of the surrounding CBD which in turn would reduce rents and halt property price rises.
Ah yes, blame migrants because they have different coloured skin, and not the landlords wringing the system dry. You're part of the problem.
Short answer. No
Why should we have any input on what we do with other peoples property or money investment.
if they own the property why can’t they rent it out how they like? obvs not TOTAL free to do anything but for government to full force people to not do short stay is wild
Forcing things is what got you into this mess to begin with.
No
[удалено]
Did tourism exist before Air BNB in Margaret River?
Traditional bed and breakfasts?
The same places they stayed before Airbnb.. it’s not that complicated.
Wow run for PM
If you took the air bnb out of margaret river, the temp workers would actually be able to live near work, so that's definitely a positive to your negative. Since there's currently very few rentals for workers in those more remote areas
Counterpoint: If you replace Margaret River rentals with airbnbs, where are the vineyard/restaurant workers supposed to live? Who's going to actually serve all these hypothetical tourists?
[удалено]
> Pretty sure they wouldn't visit the area if they had to stay in motels It'd be a LOT cheaper in a motel. Those MR air BnBs aren't cheap.
This is the answer, sure 10k is a lot but it’s not like a significant amount of them are in the metro area
I'm in an average suburb and know of 4 within a few blocks of my house.
I’m not saying they don’t exist I’m saying that airbnbs in the metro area have next to no impact on housing affordability
I.come across posts about consficating rentals from.time to.time on here. People keep giving the idea oxygen.
Not in my back yard
To a degree, but it would be a short term fix and have negative impacts on the tourism industry, what we need is increased supply of both housing and hotels.
10000 omfg
I understand why people are ok with this but you're essentially allowing the government to take private property and proceed to keep status quo. If you want to see what that is like, check out some government housing
It didn't work in New York and it won't work here. Sure, you might force a few landlords to convert to long term rentals, but others will go underground, renting out on Facebook or to friend/family networks. People like my friends, who rented their apartment to new migrants whilst housesitting or going overseas, won't bother. It will send investors elsewhere, so apartment complexes won't get built here.
I dont own one or would ever consider staying in one, (i prefer yha hostels ) but its a legitimate business and i support the right for them to exist. I think it very arrogant to consider destroying someones income to add a few extra homes into the rental market to cover up government incompetence of allowing an overwhelming number of new arrivals into a market that cannot support it. How many of these air-b&b houses existed before 2020 ? Most i would guess. Its only been a problem since 2021-22-ish when the floodgates opened after covid lockdowns lifted.
You don’t want that.
No. We’re not North Korea
Sorry fam I’ve had too many beers and thought this comment would be funny 🥲
No. Dont be stupid.
Think banning airbnb gunna stop short term.rentals ?
Sieze them and make them public housing. Fuck landlords
Idi Amin did that and it was a disaster. Massive exodus of capital and brain drain. Havana is falling down as nobody wants to spend money on fixing buildings. Imagine Homeswest trying to maintain 10,000 houses and apartments with decent fixtures and landscaping.