Melbourne

1867 readers

62 users here now

This community is a place created for the people of Melbourne and Victoria. We are a positive, welcoming and inclusive community. We might not agree about everything, but we always strive to stay civil and respectful.

The focus of our discussions is based around things that effect Victoria, but we are also free to discuss our local perspective on wider issues. Or head to the regular Daily Random Discussion thread to talk about anything.

Full Community Guidelines

Ongoing discussions, FAQs & Resources (still under construction)

Adoption Certificate for Nellie, the Daily Thread numbat (with thanks to @Catfish)

Feedback & Suggestions

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Victoria expected to fast-track major development applications and introduce new rental protections (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

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

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

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

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