Comment on Labor's home batteries policy could help people who will never take it up. Here's how | Adam Morton
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 2 months ago
Fuck all these policies and incentives that exclude renters
Comment on Labor's home batteries policy could help people who will never take it up. Here's how | Adam Morton
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 2 months ago
Fuck all these policies and incentives that exclude renters
Auzy@aussie.zone 2 months ago
As others have said, would be good to have it mandatory for investment properties (with less subsidy). But still not a bad thing to have it for property owners too. Every bit is needed… A better solution to rectify the rental situation is eliminate negative gearing.
That being said, I own my property and really looking forward to these changes. Home batteries were something I was considering (but was waiting for a rebate). I was also looking at new insulation too, as my neighbors have been f**king loud and there are too many dickheads on dirt bikes illegally traveling down my road (and wanted to reduce the noise in my house)
So, happy with these changes. If Greens can match them, I’ll be super happy with voting for them.
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 2 months ago
No way in hell they would ever make it mandatory for rentals. They’ve barely made smoke detectors mandatory for rentals. Removing negative gearing won’t help. It will make rentals more expensive.
stib@aus.social 2 months ago
@DavidDoesLemmy @Auzy Can't believe that people are still parroting the "abolishing negative gearing will make rentals more expensive" line. Like trickle down economics and the benefits of privatisation, It was a crock of shit in the 80s it's a crock of shit now.
Putting the money that we're giving to landlords into social housing will make rentals go down. Reducing the price of property which is being pushed up by investors with their wallets stuffed with handouts will make rentals go down.
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 2 months ago
A battery is not like a smoke detector. Batteries can kill when abused and renters have no skin in the game if the house burns down. So for that reason I wouldn’t install one unless I actually lived in the house and could spend some time daily for monitoring and maintenance. That’s the same reason I didn’t install one at my mom’s house. But there I did install solar, which requires intermittent maintenance that can be easily done.
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 2 months ago
New solar, by itself, is not very valuable because the grid has a surplus of power when the sun is shining. The feed in tariff is near zero. It can offset some of your own usage but most people are out in the middle of the day.
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You don’t want a dead renter or a dead battery.
Auzy@aussie.zone 2 months ago
So what’s your solution then for rentals?
You complain if they put incentives to stop buying multiple properties and increase the availability to people who want to stop renting, you complain if they don’t?
Negative gearing mainly benefits wealthier people, and I know we had customers with 14+ houses they owned. They’re the main problem, because the more properties they buy, the bigger power they have over the market (monopolies).
There already is a first home owners grant which benefits first home buyers (I know, because I used it).
They need to add incentive for people to stop buying multiple properties, so more people can stop renting, and eliminating negative gearing could help with that.
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 2 months ago
Why do you assume renters want to stop renting? Mostly renters just want better renting conditions. I support many changes to rental laws. But I don’t think skipping all the low hanging fruit and enforcing solar and batteries is realistic.
Insulation should be a must. Repairs should be done in a timely fashion.