Hi Yuyutsu,
"Buying houses and keeping them empty is a very expensive exercise, even for a bank. Apart from the cost of purchase itself they would have to pay land tax, maintenance and council rates, possibly even an extra tax for keeping the houses unoccupied. Further, house values will decline, both because the houses depreciate as they get older and because the overall population declines. Empty houses are also prone to invasion by pigeons, mice, possums and ants, which depreciate their value even faster."

Yes granted keeping houses permanently empty is a loss with no return, including a rates and maintenence liability, but I disagree with you that house prices will decline given the current status quo.

Given our country no longer has a manufacturing base, the government relies on immigration which leads to housing demand, to create jobs.
So the government has a vested interest in immigration to keep people in existing jobs employed.

And my argument isn't without merit, if you put those empty houses on airbnb, because if you can't find a house to rent, or want to go on a holiday then the lack of a housing supply creates a higher demand for airbnb, and all you have to do is rent out an airbnb one or two days a week to cover your costs which makes it profitable enough for the banks to do so.
They could have 10,000 houses or units on their books which are only rented out on average one or two days a week, to still get a return while at the same time maintaining a housing shortage that would in turn create demand for more houses and loans for them.
While the government at the same time maintains immigration which also helps create a shortage and more demand for new homes and helps maintain employment.

Finally, the population isn't in decline, it's increasing.

Hey shadowminister,
"You greens are a complete joke financially. Your plan is to borrow a ton of cash to increase Labor's $trillion debt to $ 2 trillion and reinvest it."

That wouldn't be a bad idea if the government showed proficiency in financial and business management, but sadly we both know they don't.
Their proficiency is in wasting money at such a level that any real business would surely go broke.

If they could show proficiency in running businesses well, benefiting both workers and consumers and maintaining profitability, they wouldn't have resorted to privitisation and sold everything off.

And if they could show proficiency in their investments, then the country wouldn't be in a trillion dollars of debt.

If you run a business into a trillion dollars of debt, you've run it into the ground.
Comparing debt to GDP might be a valid way of financial management.
- But it's still based upon increasing debt, which means that the government spends more than it receives and creates inflation which is another form of tax.

Yes Yuyutsu, first we need to free up land subdivision to bring prices down, the restriction of development is forcing ridiculous prices. Yarrabilba little postage stamp size blocks have gone from under $100,000 to $288,000 currently in just a very few years.

The local council here is fighting viciously to prevent me splitting a single housing block off my 20 acres to give to a daughter. Unless she owns the block she can't raise the money to build.

They also resist granny flats. Some are exploiting vague laws about "mobile" units, while many are simply adding various units or sheds for family who can't afford to own their own. Currently council is doing nothing about the proliferation of illegal units. Perhaps councilors & bureaucrats understand they will be torn to shreds in the press & possibly in the street, if they start chucking the often single mothers living in these units out to homelessness.

When tastefully done no one is complaining. We all realise that but for the grace of god there go we.

In the 50s we were among about 100 families on a back road at Bathurst living in sheds while we built homes. The problem then was not only money, but building materials, which were just not available in an volume after the war. Councils were not so bad in those days. Our dirt floored shed was clad in flattened out 4 gallon kerosene tins, as were many others. We spent 2 very cold winters in it but we finally got that house.

prevent me splitting a single housing block off my 20 acres

Hasbeen,
Those Billy Goat Show Councils have mostly no common sense reason for such refusals.
They're simply too stupid & incompetent in their stuffing people around.
Like changing a Form 43 to a Form 16, for a reason no-one can provide an explanation.
Many competent Councils are under the incompetent thumb of Local Government. It's all about getting the snouts of bureaudroids into the troughs.

Dear Critic,

I was under the impression that your concern that the banks might abuse the situation and purchase houses deliberately to induce scarcity was in reply to my first post here.

If people are allowed to build their own shacks (my first suggestion) then there will be more housing altogether and if we manage to lower the population (my second suggestion) then there will be less demand for houses.

The banks can do what you suggested already (and government is likely to respond by heavily taxing them out of it), but I cannot see how my two suggestions can help them to exploit the market with your proposed sinister scheme further than they can already: can you please explain how you think it possible?

Surely the banks wouldn't like my proposals, but what can they possibly do other than roll over belly up?

Hi Yuyutsu,

"I was under the impression that your concern that the banks might abuse the situation and purchase houses deliberately to induce scarcity was in reply to my first post here."

Ah yeah, I can see the reason for the semi-miscommunication, when I said I didn't think the population will reduce.

I don't think your first idea is necessarily a bad idea.
But governments would carry on about building codes etc.
- My other suggestion would be to just put a slab down and put a double garage shed on it. It may not be perfect but it could still be liveable until people can afford something better.
This would be much better than a tent, a car or homeless in the street - with neither a tent or a car.

"The banks can do what you suggested already (and government is likely to respond by heavily taxing them out of it)"

I guess I could see the government cracking down on it if it went too far, but I'm not sure they could easily regulate what people charge for Airbnb

"I cannot see how my two suggestions can help them to exploit the market with your proposed sinister scheme further than they can already: can you please explain how you think it possible?"

I also can't see how the banks could exploit your ideas, but neither can see local councils giving the ok to what may effectively become shanty towns.
- But I'm not necessarily opposed to your idea.
Anything is better than a tent, a car or homeless in the street - with neither a tent or a car.