My son was in the bath the other night, and as he always does, he insisted on waiting until all the water had drained out of the tub before he’d get out.

He intensely watches the water swirl down the drain; he calls this the “water tornado.”

I told him, “You know, Duke, the water is spinning from right-to-left as it drains, but in Australia, the water spins left-to-right.”

He’s five.

He couldn’t have possibly cared less.

But my daughter is nine, and she poked her head into the room and insisted that I tell her all about this phenomenon!

Later that night, she and I began our exploration on the matter, but before we began, I had to start with the obligatory, “You know, when I was your age, I could only answer this by going to the library and taking out a book.”  She sighed, as she always does, and then we went to Google.

It turns out that the “Coriolis Effect,” of water spinning in a different direction, in a different hemisphere, is a myth.

My daughter said, “So maybe Australia isn’t that different from Canada, after all?”

As it pertains to the real estate market, people here in Canada would often clamour, “I wish we had an open bidding system for real estate like they do in Australia.”

Several years ago, I decided to research the topic and came up with this:

March 28th, 2018: “Is The Grass Greener Down Under?”

The title isn’t very SEO-friendly, and thus it took me a while to actually locate this!  But in the blog post, I dispelled a long-standing myth about how amazing their “system” of home selling is down under, when compared to what we experience here in Canada.

Read the blog post if you have time, but essentially, an overwhelming number of properties put up for auction end up selling before the auction, being withdrawn from the auction, or not meeting a pre-determined reserve price.

The notion of “fairness,” as defined by people who believe that the lowest price possible is “fair,” simply doesn’t apply in their system, as it doesn’t apply in ours.

Back in the summer, a family member who lives in the UK sent me this article from the Daily Mail:

“Radical Call To Tax Aussie Family Homes Per Spare Bedroom To Solve Housing Crisis”
Daily Mail
August 22nd, 2025

The headline was downright scary.

But when I read the contents of the article, it sounded a bit too familiar.

From the article:

A new tax on spare bedrooms has been proposed as a bold solution to fix Australia’s crippling housing shortage.

As the federal government struggles with its goal to build 1.2 million new dwellings within the next four years, property researchers have warned that the right homes may not be being built.

New data has revealed more than 60 per cent of Aussie households consist of just one or two people, yet the majority of dwellings are being built for families, with three or more bedrooms.

Property research group Cotality described the situation as a ‘stark mismatch’ between Aussies who live in homes and the type of housing dominating the market.

Yuck.  There’s that word again: mismatch.

But it would seem that many in Australia (not to mention here at home, but more on that later…) believe that many people are “mismatched” with the homes in which they live.

Do you know Bindi?

She’s an Aussie, born and raised.

She’s 78-years-old now.  She and her late husband, Lachlan, bought a home for their family in 1981.  They raised three children there.  It’s the only house they’ve ever known.

Bindi entered the workforce at age fifteen.  She’s been paying taxes for fifty-three years.

She’s always been a hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, and now she’s retired and living in the family home.

Bindi likes to garden, paint, crochet, and bake.

Bindi also likes to “putter” around the house, which means aggressively looking for things to do, fix, or improve.  Bindi is a staple over at Bunnings, which is their version of Home Depot, buying picture hooks one day and a new garden tool the next.  Bindi takes incredible pride in her home, and everybody who comes through the house agrees, and commends her for keeping it in such great shape.

Bindi’s children love to visit her regularly, bringing some eight grandchildren to the home on a regular basis.  Sunday night dinners are an open door; whoever shows up, eats, and if you miss somebody, you’ll probably see them next Sunday.

The family home is not just Bindi’s sanctuary, but it serves as the entire family’s hub.

But guess what?

It seems that Bindi is mismatched with her home.

Bindi’s home is “underutilized.”

Bindi falls into the 60% of Aussies who live alone or with one other person in a home with three or more bedrooms.

As a result, members of the Australian parliament have suggested that Bindi should be taxed on the empty rooms in her house so that eventually, it becomes unaffordable, and Bindi is forced to sell it.

This is absolutely appalling.

The “solution” to the housing crisis, according to the property research firm that commissioned the study noted in the article above, is apparently rooted in this comment:

“Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than you need.”

Oh, shoot me now.

Who gets to decide what somebody needs?

In my obviously fictional account above, don’t you think it should be up to Bindi to decide what she needs?  Don’t you think that Bindi has earned the right to utilize her home as she wishes?

Who decides what a “mismatch” looks like?  Who in the world should have that sort of power?

Because make no mistake, this tax isn’t really about revenue; it’s about forcing people to sell their homes by making them unaffordable.

Read this again:

A new tax on spare bedrooms has been proposed as a bold solution to fix Australia’s crippling housing shortage.

Connect the dots here: the “fix” to the housing shortage is to make more homes available, and in this case, we’re making them available by making them so unaffordable that a homeowner is forced to sell.

Is this really a “solution” to a housing shortage?

It feels like we’re stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

Stop me in advance if you’re a fan of watching Australian parliament clips on YouTube, but have a gander at this wozzywocker:

Here’s a quote:

“We know that this government is coming after the money of Australians.  Labour promises cheaper power, more homes, free visits to the doctor, and lower taxes, and instead, we see bills going up, housing targets missed, out-of-pocket costs are skyrocketing, and new taxes are on the table.  This is the cost of Labour: higher living costs, weaker growth, and declining living standards and productivity.”

Does this sound eerily familiar?

If you took out “Australians” and replaced it with “Canadians,” wouldn’t you feel that this applies?

For the thousandth time, please, let me offer: we cannot tax our way out of problems.

This has been the biggest red herring of my adult lifetime, and we continue to see it play out in our housing market, over and over again.

Here in Canada, the idea of an “empty bedroom tax” has its supporters.

While I am aware that you can find all kinds of crazy things on the internet if you look hard enough, I’d be remiss if I didn’t offer this white paper that a blog reader sent me back in the spring…

“Introducing The Empty Bedrooms Tax: Reimagining Home Use In The Face Of A Housing Crisis”
March 30th, 2025

In a bold move designed to challenge the status quo of residential property use, policymakers have unveiled a new initiative aimed at tackling housing shortages head-on: the Empty Bedrooms Tax (EBT).

Inspired by Vancouver’s Empty Homes Tax—which successfully returned thousands of previously vacant homes back into the rental pool—the Empty Bedrooms Tax addresses a subtler, yet just as significant, issue: unused bedrooms within already-occupied homes.

We are not building housing fast enough. Full stop. But while we scramble for new solutions, there’s something else hiding in plain sight: the thousands of unoccupied bedrooms across the country. Space that could be housing students, newcomers, or even extended family—but instead sits collecting dust.

This tax is about optimizing what already exists. About accountability. And about saying, “Enough with the luxury of empty rooms while people sleep in their cars.”

How the Tax Works

• Definition: Any room with a closet is considered a bedroom. No more den vs. bedroom debate.
• Home Offices: Only exempt if they were declared on last year’s tax return.
• Guests & Family: Visiting family and friends are encouraged to support the local economy by staying in hotels. Bonus: less towel laundry for you.

The Cost Of Doing Nothing – Now With A Price Tag

Starting July 1, 2025, homeowners will be taxed 0.25% of their home’s assessed value per empty bedroom. And for those who ignore the call to action? That rate increases by 0.25% per year, indefinitely.

To illustrate how the EBT applies, here are three real-world case studies:

Scenario 1: The Lone Dweller in the Sky

• Home: $1,000,000 condo, 2 bedrooms + den
• Occupants: 1 (den not declared as office)
• Vacant Bedrooms: 1

Year Tax Rate Annual EBT

1 0.25% $2,500

3 0.75% $7,500

5 1.25% $12,500

–

Scenario 2: The Family of Three

• Home: $1,500,000 townhouse, 3 bedrooms
• Occupants: 2 adults, 1 child
• Vacant Bedrooms: 1

Year Tax Rate Annual EBT

1 0.25% $3,750

3 0.75% $11,250

5 1.25% $18,750

–

Scenario 3: The Empty Nest Estate

• Home: $2,500,000 house, 4 bedrooms
• Occupants: 1 retired widow
• Vacant Bedrooms: 3

Year Tax Rate (3 rooms) Annual EBT

1 0.75% $18,750

3 2.25% $56,250

5 3.75% $93,750

–

Balancing Fairness With Urgency

Yes, this is bold. Yes, it will challenge notions of what private property means. But the stakes are too high for polite avoidance.

This tax isn’t about punishment—it’s about participation. Use the space, rent the space, or pay for the privilege of holding it unused. Because belief without action is just sentiment, and action without consequence is chaos.

Let’s Get Real

If this makes you uncomfortable, good. Growth often does. But the Empty Bedrooms Tax is not just about dollars. It’s about making space—for people, for change, and for the kind of future we claim to care about.

I cannot believe somebody wrote this.

The arrogance, entitlement, and theivery on display are utterly shocking.

Imagine taxing a senior citizen $93,750 because she has a guest room, a craft room, and a playroom for her grandchildren?

HOW DARE SHE!

That tax-paying, law-abiding citizen should be forced to live where, how, and in what somebody else decides, right?

The line, “This isn’t about punishment – it’s about participation,” leaves me fuming.  Because by that logic, you can force anybody to do anything.

While I recognize this is merely one voice on the Internet (albeit a former president of a mortgage brokerage), there are other voices just like it.

Since I first started writing this blog in mid-September, an article subsequently appeared in the Canadian media about the proposal in Australia:

“Taxing Empty Rooms Is A Bad Idea, But Our Addiction To Too Much House Is A Problem Too”
Financial Post
September 19th, 2025

The headline surmises that “too much house” is a bad thing for us, and that the government should be responsible for our health and well-being, and thus eliminate bad things from our lives.

The same government that decided not to decriminalize marijuana, but to legalize it, then hand out store licenses like winning lottery tickets?

The same government that legalized gambling and changed the way we view televised sporting events forever?

The same government that has been profiting from a monopoly on liquor sales for my entire lifetime?

Who decides what’s good for us and what’s bad for us?  Maybe the government should decide which religions we should follow, and which we shouldn’t?

Excuse the hyperbole here, folks, but don’t you see where this is headed?

I believe in property rights.  Full stop.

I’m the guy who thinks it’s absurd that you need permission to cut down a tree on your own property, that you own in fee simple, and on which you pay property taxes, but I know I’m going to lose this argument with many of you.

I’m merely proving a point.

No, I don’t think you should be allowed to do “whatever you want” on your property, ie. run a drug den, build a four-storey casino, etc.  But these are absurd notions, and I thought, for the longest time, that “absurd” had a category of its own that was easy to define.

Now we’re talking about taxing people for having an empty bedroom in order to “free up” housing supply?

We’re looking to displace people from the home that they own, which they purchased with after-tax dollars, and on which they pay property tax, because they’re not using it the way that we feel they “should” be using it?

That’s absurd.  By the very definition.

And from here, I can’t imagine what else we could dream up.

How long was my son in the bathtub the other night?  Long enough to necessitate filling the entire tub with water?  Water is a precious commodity, you know.  It’s a large tub and he’s a small child; maybe somebody else should have been in there with him?  Perhaps we throw a tax on that?

I made my daughter a grilled-cheese sandwich on the weekend, and she took one bite, said she felt sick, and then went and rested on the couch.

Call the authorities.

Get them over to my house, have them check the green bin (an extra tax applies if I throw it in the black bin…), and tax me on it.

God love hyperbole, but sometimes you need it to prove a point.

And is it really that far-fetched?

Ten years ago, you wouldn’t have thought that one day, the municipal government would force you to sign a declaration stating that you sleep in your own home every night, and yet, here we are.

So raise your hand.  Go on.

Tell me that you live in a three-bedroom house and you’d have no problem with the government forcing you to sleep two strangers down the hall.

The Aussies have said “no.”

But which country is next in line?