In a feudal system, serfs are seen as tenants who do not own the land they work on. Their obligation to pay a portion of their produce to the lord reflects a system of control rather than ownership. Peter Siminski and Roger Wilkins propose a radical taxes on Australian homeowners through a feudal concept called "imputed rent."

On August 22, 2025, a report by economists Professors Peter Siminski and Roger Wilkins proposed a radical change to the tax system in Australia, targeting homeowners through a near-feudal concept called "imputed rent." This idea suggests that homeowners should be taxed based on the rental value of their properties. Living in a house they have paid for is framed as a kind of rent-free occupation. It is as if Siminski and Wilkins assume people must continuously pay for their shelter and disregards years of prior payment for the land. It is as if they are proposing that ownership be cancelled, and turned into a rental obligation to the state.

Feudal Perspective

In a feudal system, serfs are seen as tenants who do not own the land they work on. Their obligation to pay a portion of their produce to the lord reflects a system of control rather than ownership. This mirrors the idea of taxing homeowners as if they were tenants of their own properties, suggesting that the state has a claim over the value of shelter. In  feudalism, the traditional portion that went to the Lord was 1/3. Another third went to the Church. And the serf was allowed to keep the last third. But there were always creeping charges and obligations.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics suggests, reposing on contentious assumptions, that treating homeowners as tenants of their own properties would reflect both rental income and expenses. The researchers argue that homeowners have substantially higher disposable incomes than renters, and the current tax system exacerbates this inequality by exempting owner-occupied housing from capital gains and imputed rent taxes. From this contorted point of view, this purported "exemption" reputedly would cost the government about $50 billion annually in lost revenue.

Siminski proposes that this tax-free status for homeowners should be viewed as contributing to inflated housing prices and creating barriers for first-time buyers, further widening wealth disparities. He argues that the issue of owner-occupied housing is often overlooked 'like the elephant in the room,' in discussions about tax reform and inequality. Of course, his failure to factor in the major contributor to inflated prices and demand for housing - mass immigration - is a basic flaw in his argument, although not the only one.

Historically, Australia has previously included imputed rent in its tax base from 1915 to 1923, with another proposal to reintroduce it rejected in 1975. Currently, only four OECD countries—Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, and Switzerland—tax imputed rents, and they do so at relatively low rates and under specific conditions.

The Importance of Shelter
Shelter is a fundamental human necessity, providing safety, stability, and a sense of belonging. Recognizing this means that housing should be treated primarily as a basic human right rather than a mere commodity. This perspective emphasizes the essential role that homes play in individuals' lives, transcending financial considerations.

The Distinction Between Homeowners and Investors
There is a crucial difference between single homeowners—who occupy their primary residences—and property investors, who purchase multiple properties for profit. Homeowners invest in their homes not only financially but also emotionally, creating communities and fostering stability. In contrast, investors treat homes as financial assets, prioritizing profit over people’s needs.

Imputed Rent Tax Proposal
Siminski and Wilkins’ proposal to tax imputed rent undermines the very concept of shelter by treating homes as commodities subject to taxation, based on their market value. This approach creates multiple problems. 

Control versus Complexity of Implementation:
Although the authoritarian government would gain more control over the population by increasing definition of taxable income, this would be financially costly. The administrative burden of valuing properties for imputed rent taxation would lead to confusion and disputes, complicating an already byzantine tax system.

People would be turned off buying homes, since they might feel they could not really own them. And this might lead to ongoing decline in the birth-rate and tax-base, even from our massive immigrant intake.Without a nest, birds don't lay eggs, and the same seems true for humans, born here or immigrated.

From the point of view of the community, never owning a home means a loss of community stability and increase dependency and submission to government control, which individuals do not want. 

Previous use and rejection of such a tax in Australia:

The tax was seen as disproportionately affecting middle-class and working-class families who had sacrificed to purchase homes, while wealthier landlords could offset rental income with expenses, creating a perception of inequity. The repeal in 1923 likely reflected political pressures from homeowners and advocacy groups who saw the tax as an overreach by the federal government. The Income Tax Assessment Act 1915 was introduced during wartime to raise revenue, but as the war ended, the justification for such a broad tax base weakened. Both sides of politics, including the Labor government that introduced the tax and subsequent governments, faced pressure to simplify the tax system and reduce burdens on voters.

Unfairness and failure to acknowledge social goods:

In 2025, homeowners already bear important ongoing costs, including maintenance and property taxes - which are based on contentious valuations that include unrealised gains due to inflation, which the homeowner has neither sought nor exploited. These unrealised gains, whilst taxed, are never refunded when the valuation price falls.

An additional tax on imputed rent unfairly penalizes those who have worked hard and put aside income to buy their home. A key argument in the past that holds today, was that taxing imputed rent would disproportionately burden homeowners with valuable properties but low cash incomes, such as retirees or pensioners. These households might own high-value homes due to long-term ownership or rising property prices but lack the liquidity to pay a tax on hypothetical income.  Like today, the 1970s saw high inflation and economic uncertainty. Adding a new tax on homeowners was seen as risking further economic instability, especially since housing was a significant driver of household wealth and consumer confidence. 

​​​​​​
Shelter is different from investment

Shelter is undeniably a human right, even if Australian governments deny this in practice. It is essential to recognize the distinct roles that homeowners and investors play in the housing 'market.' Siminski and Wilkins' proposal primarily aims to generate additional tax revenue rather than genuinely addressing wealth disparities. It risks making housing less accessible and could lead to a situation where everyone, including lower-income individuals, faces greater financial strain. Instead of elevating the poor, it may inadvertently contribute to a broader economic burden, making everyone equally poorer without improving overall access to housing - indeed, by significantly reducing access.
 

Feudalism

Feudalism provides a historical lens through which to examine the taxation of shelter and imputed rent.

Tenancy and Control:

In a feudal system, serfs are seen as tenants who do not own the land they work on. Their obligation to pay a portion of their produce to the lord reflects a system of control rather than ownership. This mirrors the idea of taxing homeowners as if they were tenants of their own properties, suggesting that the state has a claim over the value of shelter.

Redistribution of Resources:

The feudal system operated on the principle that lords provided protection and land use rights in exchange for a share of the produce. Similarly, an imputed rent tax could be justified as a means for the state to redistribute resources, ostensibly to fund public goods, although it may reinforce state control over personal living conditions.

Social Hierarchies:

Feudalism inherently creates social hierarchies, where the lords possess wealth and power, while serfs remain economically dependent. Treating homeownership as a taxable income could perpetuate modern inequalities, reinforcing a system where the state benefits disproportionately from the labor and sacrifices of homeowners.

Economic Dependency:

Just as serfs were economically dependent on the lords, homeowners taxed on imputed rent could become increasingly dependent on state support or market fluctuations, undermining their autonomy and stability.

Feudalism illustrates how a system of taxation on shelter can reflect broader societal hierarchies and control mechanisms. These kinds of taxes raise ethical concerns about the ownership and autonomy of individuals, and the implications of treating shelter as a taxable income.

How many more outrageous insults and injuries will the Albanese attempt to inflict on Australians in its manipulation of population and the housing market, and its quest for total control and surveillance?