Hacker News Reader

Comment by tobtoh | Hacker News Reader

In Melbourne, Australia, we have a 'vacant landlord' tax and part of what initiated this law was a survey was done of the water consumption of properties in Melbourne - ie little or no water consumption = no one living there.

On that measure, they calculated something like 16% of investment properties were vacant.

https://www.afr.com/real-estate/residential/vic/investors-ke...

View on HN

Given human nature, the ways laws and regulations are made, and the actual price of tap water in a developed country, I don't see this evolving into anything other than landlord figuring a way for their non rented places to consume enough water to pass the test. I'm happy for you guys if it's working, and maybe I'm too jaded, but I know this wouldn't work here in France, only make things worse.

They also check whether the bond has been lodged at the govt authority (this is mandatory)

One of the widely available $20 garden watering timers that flushes water down the toilet.

I bet Melbourne already has entrepreneurs selling the installation of this "water surveillance solution" at value pricing: a fraction of the saved occupancy tax!

When designing the law, you just need to consider this possibility as a fraud, and then if you do this you are facing a huge fine or a prison sentence. That's how all taxes work.

Of course some people would still infringe law (#Balkany) but most would not.

I the special case of France: such a law would be really easy to apply, at or least it would without Macron's changes: as everybody living somewhere was paying the «taxe d'habitation», every house without anyone paying for inhabiting it is an empty house. And in practice, with the suppression of the «taxe d'habitation», cities could just raise the level for the «taxe foncière» and it would have the same effect as a taxe on empty houses, without any special work to do.

In the ACT we have Land Tax. Doesn't matter if there are tenants or not.

"""Land tax applies to residential properties that are not used as principal places of residence, including all residential properties owned by a trust or corporation. Land tax does not apply to commercial properties."""

The question is, what kind of fuckery is going on to make vacant property more profitable than rented property in the first place?

For multi-unit properties in some California cities: rent control.

A large number of laws written by people that don't understand economics.

For people who need money in something besides a bank, but don’t want the hassle of being a landlord. So not really profit, but something they feel will appreciate in value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com