[cobran20]

Click the link that has links for the two articles.

[staringclown]

Using water usage as I measure of vacancy is fair enough I think. One thing I find confusing is the notion that people leave a property vacant for significant periods of time. This is exactly what negative gearing was meant to avoid. Can you claim a loss if you're not renting the property? I didn't think you could. How much sense does it make to leave a property vacant?

[urchin]

staringclown, on 10 January 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Using water usage as I measure of vacancy is fair enough I think. One thing I find confusing is the notion that people leave a property vacant for significant periods of time. This is exactly what negative gearing was meant to avoid. Can you claim a loss if you're not renting the property? I didn't think you could. How much sense does it make to leave a property vacant?

you can't claim it but they have to catch you at it... and i doubt very much that unless someone dobs you in they would ever find out about it (and even then i wonder if they would bother with it--limited resources, bigger fish to fry and the variety of excuses defenses the landlord can put forth).

more to the point is the why... why would one willingly forego rent if the rental market is as competitive as everyone makes it out to be? sure there is a bit of hassle involved but that's what property agents are for. better a small return than no return... in a very few cases the property might be so wonderfully new and shiny that renting it would cause the value to drop but i would have to guess that those are the exceptions rather than the norms.

its a mystery to me. you'd have to be a fool to let it sit vacant. but then again there ARE a lot of fools investing in property...

[savagegoose]

i hear in china they buy property and dont want to rent it to peasants, so whole cities go empty.

[cobran20]

savagegoose, on 10 January 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

i hear in china they buy property and dont want to rent it to peasants, so whole cities go empty.

If that is true, then the communist government is not looking after the proletariat. Instead, they only rent to those that can afford the high rent that needs to cover the over priced cost of the IP.

[itching]

urchin, on 10 January 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

you can't claim it but they have to catch you at it... and i doubt very much that unless someone dobs you in they would ever find out about it (and even then i wonder if they would bother with it--limited resources, bigger fish to fry and the variety of excuses defenses the landlord can put forth).

more to the point is the why... why would one willingly forego rent if the rental market is as competitive as everyone makes it out to be? sure there is a bit of hassle involved but that's what property agents are for. better a small return than no return... in a very few cases the property might be so wonderfully new and shiny that renting it would cause the value to drop but i would have to guess that those are the exceptions rather than the norms.

its a mystery to me. you'd have to be a fool to let it sit vacant. but then again there ARE a lot of fools investing in property...

I know dozens of people who have or have had a rental property sitting empty for 6 months plus.
The reason is they only bought to get the grant, they have no interest in living in these houses which are in the outer suburbs and they cant rent them for a while.

They get their mail redirected there for 6 months and then thats it - time to rent it out.
I dont know if its bc of my age group (they all started to do it as soon as the first one did - keepping up with the Jones!) or bc of my Greek background (and they all love rental properties) but I literally know probably 30 or 40 people in Adelaide who have done this in the last 3 or 4 years. All in their late 20's.