• Auzy@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      26 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        26 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          25 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 days 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              24 days ago

              Entirely incorrect. Not only can the state store energy in reservoirs during the day to produce hydro at night, there are battery banks like that one in LA that went into flames. But most importantly, they use an app to throttle solar into the grid to reduce fuel use. I mean, that’s the whole point! If you make enough solar, they can stop running some random power plant somewhere. Some power plant’s cannot easily be turned off or throttled down. That’s a them problem.