Australia wants to impose a delusional tax on vacant rooms

In the face of the growing housing crisis in Australia, a new proposal has caused significant controversy by suggesting the possibility of implementing a tax on unoccupied bedrooms.

This idea arises in a context where the federal government is struggling to achieve its ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes in the next four years. However, various stakeholders in the sector have warned that the problem is not limited to the number of homes, but rather to their type and distribution.

According to recent data, more than 60% of Australian households are made up of one or two people, but most new homes continue to be designed for families, that is, with three or more bedrooms. This mismatch has been described as a "disconnect" between the country's demographic reality and the housing supply.

Some real estate stakeholders pointed out that although it is not incorrect for people to live in homes larger than they need, this can represent a significant inefficiency in the allocation of living space.

For example, more than 1.3 million two-person households live in three-bedroom homes, even surpassing the number of households with three or four residents in that same type of property.

The problem becomes more severe when analyzing that single-person households, which represent 27%, barely have access to suitable housing, since one-bedroom apartments or studios only make up 6% of the housing stock.

In this context, the federal government, together with some socialist developers, have put forward the outlandish proposal to tax homes with more rooms than necessary and reduce the cost of living in smaller properties. There is also a proposal to eliminate stamp duty, which hinders mobility, and replace it with a broader land tax that reflects the size and use of the occupied land.

However, this so-called "empty bedroom tax" proposal has been met with skepticism and harsh criticism. Although it is recognized that the housing system needs reforms, taxing people for having extra space in their homes is seen as excessive state intrusion into personal and family decisions.

Many older people, for example, remain in their large homes not out of whim, but due to emotional ties, health reasons, or a lack of suitable alternatives for moving.

Furthermore, this measure risks unfairly penalizing those who legitimately require additional space for reasons not always visible in statistics: caring for relatives, remote work, temporary accommodation of adult children, or even future plans to start a family.

Instead of penalizing those who already own larger homes, it would be fairer and more effective to incentivize the construction of intermediate housing, such as duplexes, low-rise apartments, or residential homes, that better adapt to the current household structure.