There should be a law against owning properties you don't live in.
That said fucking with real estate agents I can get behind so do whatever on that front. Maybe consider not being a landlord though.
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
48 points (86.4% liked)
Australia
3507 readers
101 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I can think of a few exceptions. But I think owning multiple properties in the same location for more than a specified amount of time should be illegal or heavily taxed.
For example, you buy a home and are still trying to sell an old one. You might own two houses for some time. You might inherit a house and need to sell it.
You might have family in multiple parts of the country or work in multiple parts of the country/world and need a place to live.
A friend’s mom had severe asthma and was told to leave her home state during the winter and live in Florida.
But I have a friend who owns like 3 hours in the same neighborhood just as rental properties. That should be illegal/heavily taxed.
But I have a friend who owns like 3 hours in the same neighborhood just as rental properties. That should be illegal/heavily taxed.
Laughing at the person calling Mao a dictator, guess their comment was blocked in here. Popular support and being elected mean nothing because he wasn’t white. “Authoritarian” is even better. And then they yap some nonsense about living in someone’s head when they were the ones crying because you posted a Mao emote.
load more comments
(17 replies)
There should be a law against owning properties you don’t live in.
I'm trying to picture what this looks like. Who do we rent from if we can't afford to buy a house in this alternate vision of the future? There is no way that 20-year-old me working at servos had the capital to buy a house. I had zero savings and a low income.
I see you invoking the Maoist uprising in another comment, but I'll be honest - the years following that uprising were hard for a huge swathe of the population (not to mention fatal for Millions more). I would not want to live through a Chairman Mao. Modern China happened despite Mao. Not because of him.
You literally cannot conceive of a reality wherein a home does not have to be rented from a parasitic landlord?
You cannot conceive a future wherein you don't have to afford a home?
Also Mao is a beloved figure for many because he lifted millions out of poverty and ended the brutal feudal system that preceeded him. He also famously said "no investigation no right to speak" and you clearly need to do some investigating.
This is akin to a freed slave asking "who do I serve then?"
load more comments
(6 replies)
I see you invoking the Maoist uprising in another comment, but I'll be honest - the years following that uprising were hard for a huge swathe of the population (not to mention fatal for Millions more). I would not want to live through a Chairman Mao.
If you think it was hard to live under Mao, you should see what it was like before him.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I see you invoking the Maoist uprising in another comment, but I'll be honest - the years following that uprising were hard for a huge swathe of the population (not to mention fatal for Millions more). I would not want to live through a Chairman Mao. Modern China happened despite Mao. Not because of him.
What was it like to live in China before 1949 compared to after 1949? Please support your assertions with relevant statistics.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The practice of "renting" needs to die in a goddamn fire. Single family homes should never be "rented". Temporary (6-month to 5-year) occupancy of a single family home should be done under a "land contract".
Basically, the occupant starts making mortgage payments (principal, interest, taxes, insurance) but title stays with the landlord. The landlord receives only the "interest" part of the payment. The "principal" part of the payment is held in escrow, in an interest-bearing account. This is the occupant's equity in the home.
If the occupant stays through the term of the contract, title transfers to the occupant, the escrowed principal payments transfer to the landlord, and the contract converts to a private mortgage. If the occupant leaves before the term of the contract, the principal payments are returned to them.
Land contracts build tenant wealth and drive people toward home ownership. 20-year-old you, with no capital and working a minimum wage job, should be able to enter into a land contract and start building wealth.
To drive us toward such a system, we can provide significant property tax advantages to owner-occupants. Investors can only get those advantages by getting the occupant of a property to qualify as an "owner". A renter would not qualify, but a tenant under a land contract would.
Basically, we phase in an increase in property taxes, and a commensurate (or greater) owner occupant credit. Current owner-occupants will pay the same (or less) than they currently do. Investors who adapt, and convert their "tenants" to "buyers", will also pay the same (or less) than they currently do. Investors who refuse to convert will pay higher property taxes, while also serving a smaller pool of tenants with better options.
load more comments
(4 replies)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/vienna-s-social-housing-and-low-rent-strategy/102639674
Good quality, cheap housing.
Meanwhile the roof in my kitchen has almost fallen out (huge hole in it) and when I reported it to my landlord they instead arranged for a “routine” house inspection next week.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ironic that Mao is discussed and the biggest culprits in the housing market are (allegedly) Chinese nationals.
Reportedly, in certain Chinese cultures, men (and young men) do not have access to women and you women unless they are a land owner. It doesn’t matter if the land they own is a single-room apartment that has room for half a single bed and never has any tenants, they own land so they get a root. This also explains all those huge ghost cities in China which are all unoccupied high-rises.
You and everyone else talking shit about China are not doing so in a principled manner and are displaying incredible amounts of racism and chauvinism.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
It's unsolicited and its purpose is marketing.
https://www.donotcall.gov.au/consumers/consumer-overview/making-a-complaint/
Or you can always sign their mobile up to services. Usually you'll find it on a billboard next to the mugshot of them sporting a shit-eating grin.
Or you can always sign their mobile up to services. Usually you’ll find it on a billboard next to the mugshot of them sporting a shit-eating grin.
Or just in my recent call history.... Looked it up and they're the "founder" of the company along with like 4 other people. All claiming equal rights. I wonder if they fought over who got their name first?
And they do indeed have a shit-eating grin. All of them. Why do they always look like that?
Damn, they called from their own number? I don't know why I'm surprised lol. At least you know you can block it and that's probably that.
You can also write a complaint to the other four founders and reference your formal complaint to the gov in it. I'm sure that'll stir the pot if there's any power struggles currently going on 👍
Would be a clever way to case the joint too
Australia has a Do Not Call Register. A telemarketing call (which includes where the purpose is "to offer to supply goods or services" or "to advertise or promote goods or services") is generally illegal if it is made to a number on the Do Not Call Register. There is an exemption if they submitted the number called to the Register to check if it was listed up to 30 days before the call, and it didn't come back - so generally complaints are only possible if the number has been on the register for longer than 30 days. Consumers can get listed on the DNCR, and submit complaints if they receive a telemarketing call more than 30 days after listing at https://www.donotcall.gov.au/. The legislation can be read here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2006A00088/latest/text
In addition, Australia has commonwealth legislation about processing of personal information (the Privacy Act). However, it currently doesn't apply to 'small businesses' - businesses which made less than $3,000,000 of revenue in the previous financial year, unless they are in the credit reporting, health, or data broking business, or supply to the commonwealth. For organisations the Privacy Act applies to, they are only allowed to use personal information for direct marketing in a few circumstances - they obtained it from a person who would reasonably expect them to use it in those circumstances, and they provide an easy way to opt out, and they haven't opted out. They can also obtain it from someone else with the person's consent (or if it is impractical to obtain the consent). If asked, they have to disclose what information they hold, and the source of the data. The text of the Privacy Act can be found here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03712/latest/text. The government has announced plans to tighten it up, likely including covering small businesses and increasing penalties.
Disclaimer: IANAL, not intended as legal advice, your individual circumstances might vary, consult a lawyer.
they really need to fuck off with that "doesn't apply to small business". You see it with worker protection, privacy, basic security. Go fuck yourselves. You're jump starting bad practises.
I don't know but if I had to guess I'd say no such law exists.
They can't "harass" you, but a once off call isn't that.
Even if you could prove they had gotten your personal details through some nefarious means, no one would care. If you complained to their professional body I can almost guarantee they wouldn't understand what the problem is.
They can't "harass" you, but a once off call isn't that.
Found the non-Millennial! I would say all phone calls are harassment. 😋
fuck off this person is whining about cold calls while people are literally dying because people like them are hoarding surplus housing.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Here in VIC, its also completely s*** there aren't any junk mail laws.
Myself (and I heard this from others) plan to shred up any crap they put in my mailbox though from now on, and scatter it in their office. If everyone does that, it makes it unprofitable for them to do dodgy junk mail drops at least. It's also likely totally legal, because you're returning their litter.. At the moment, they ignore NO JUNK mail signs because there are no repurcussions, but, even shoving it under their door at their office might be enough to make them stop. Everyone really needs to start this..
I generally add their number to every callback number I can find on the internet, so they have to deal with dodgy phone calls. As they are distributing their mobile number wanting people to call them, I make sure as many people call them as they request
In America there are "do not call" lists and I think it's illegal to cold-call numbers on those. Otherwise, you're free game if there's not a state or municipal law protecting you (and there rarely is). Maybe Australia has something similar.
Either way, you'll get far fewer inquiries from landsharks if you stop hoarding properties and parasitizing the wages of people who work.
In several countries you can add your number to a no-marketing list, making it illegal.
Sign up on the DoNotCall register.
It will stop the honest ones from calling and when the dishonest ones do call, ask them for their business name and ABN and they disconnect very quickly.
It doesn’t make you immune to Political or Charity cold-calls, but if you mention that you will never vote or donate to someone who does cold calls, you get out on their internal DNC list very quickly.
It also doesn’t stop Scam/Illegal spam calls, but if you ask for their legal business name and ABN enough times, they soon get the picture and will disconnect the call.
view more: next ›