Finally, someone telling it as it is....

[ILLaViTaR]

Pretty clear cut it's got nothing to do with excessive spending since the percentage of wage to property values back then was marginally lower... That old excuse has been proven invalid yet people still use it. Everyone actually knows they've more than doubled but self interest keeps their hands over their ears of course... and everyone should also know the 1999 50% cgt exemption is completely responsible for all of it. Everyone knows this is what caused it so I don't get why people pretend to blame iphones and grog. We know people are wasteful but that's completely irrelevant to property inflation. I mean... obviously if that was the case then there would've been no inflation and the reason would be that.. derp

Not so static after 1999 as we see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...ousing2013.JPG

[BHDOGS]

Unfortunately government policy to turn over more houses and make money especially in s.a of stamp duty which is now about $20,000 for a regular house here is a heavy chunk of a deposit that could be going towards the actually house not the s.a governments coffers but there so addicted to the money and such a huge part of there budget it cannot be wound back or offset by a tax rise somewhere else. Add negative gearing, investors buying purely for profit. Cashed up old people buying to supplement there old age pensions or even to reduce there own money liability to qualify for the age pension. And its a real **** up of government making that **** has risen as it has.

[BHDOGS]

And to rub insult into the wound rather then attempting to fix the problem they try to recruit more people into the spiraling system by offering first home owners grants which doesn't even cover the cost of the stamp duty so the gov still ends up in front its absolute madness.

[tut0r]

Who wants to go halvsies in an island off the coast somewhere? Probably end up cheaper in the long run if all of AFF chips in

[ILLaViTaR]

Keating wanted it gone and out of all of them even he couldn't get rid of it, if anyone wanted it gone it was him I'd imagine until he realized it was essentially here to stay forever. A "necessary" evil. It's massive government cash cow like you said they'll never get rid of it!

I don't know how it works with overseas wages either but the biggest thing to hit the news would be all the Chinese investors "gentrifying" us out of our own homes. cbd's aside has anyone seen the Chinese property movement in Ringwood in the past 12 months it's absolutely absurd.. it's great for the people they're buying the houses off/raising property values but I get the feeling they will rise to the top of the market and then things will be very different a landlords/no owners market of holding through generations like in the UK.

The CBD will always be the prime market. When a Chinese investor buys a terrace in Carlton where does the third generation citizen that sold the property move to? Portsea? Soon enough the places where people NEED to live will become completely unownable. Then the real profit begins

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

lol get off your high horse my family PAYS 50k in tax p.a. and doesn't ******* negative gear. Instead half of that ultimately goes to their sons welfare. Whereas ALL of it could be deducted for self gain like your so much more ethical mob :S My fathers the taxpayer and he couldn't give a **** about any of you investors he absolute despises your ethic and is a better person for not indulging in the rorts. Raising a son with illness he understands welfare is more important than greed and toys.

It's embarrassing that my family contributes to society and only takes when required ie for mental illness and not to play monopoly games. It's beyond condescending when critique is coming from the the real rorters of society.. Self entitled bigots who don't actually need the wealth yet convince themselves they have a right before those that actually don't abuse society's pool.

I'm sorry but your attitude is amazing I think you've got the morality the wrong way around. Nothing wrong with disability benefits as they're used for disability like 10 thousand boxes of tissues and an electric heater everyday not to mention 10 000 other things that are none of your business. They're called essentials and human rights unlike your privileged monopoly zionist tirade that stole from an entire generation.

Greed and toys before survival and healthcare what a joke. Explain how it's ok to build your own equity with society's pool? And to have a problem with welfare that comes from the same pool and is actually essential? Some people just have a self entitled attitude I guess talking of attitudes and all.

Zionist?

How does that fit into your argument?

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

Anything John Symonds says now doesn't have the weight behind it like it use to.

Yes he does, he's fatter these days.

Anyone seen his 'tasteful' $70m house in Wolselely St, Pt Piper?

"Aussie John" pretends to be the battlers' friend but sold out to CBA at the earliest opportunity.

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

...Only on a right wing forum would you get scrutinized into revealing your financial situation and taboo/disability personal information lol. Like I have to justify myself to anyone here. People don't talk/treat people like they do on here... Well not in the Australia I've lived the last 25yrs in anyway. Look who I'm talking too lol and the context of it... no where else would anyone address/attack someone as blatant as can be to their face demanding their personal information as though it's their god given right... never seen something more audacious. Who the **** do you think you are to all those that did? Pathetic. Mind your own business? It's obvious these people can't comprehend anything outside of their own self interests. Or accept other peoples differences and lifestyles that may conflict with their own. Therefore who's ever going to listen to them?...

Huh? I thought you volunteered your personal circumstances, both financial and in terms of disability, and did so without any prompting from anyone...no one "demanded" it.

As for the way people have talked to you, they probably thought you could handle it given all the *'s you threw at the returned soldier that has worked hard for all he has. Would you "address/attack that soldier fella as blatant to his face"? If you had "accepted his differences and lifestyle that may conflict with your own" then no one would be putting up an alternate argument, which from what I have seen has actually been quite civil.

Anyway, I don't negative gear. As I stated last time on this merry-go-round, I only own one house (well, me and the tank own it) - it is the house I live in so I call it a home. It is not in the best area but the area is OK, and I could have built a bigger or 'nicer' house or built in a 'nicer' area with what the bank were willing to lend but I did not want to be under any financial strain. I still don't have any issue those that are working hard and/or exposing themselves to risk to try to fund their own retirement.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Can you explain how prices are artificially inflated? There are plenty of people either earning decent cash or have stored wealth to buy, so naturally this particular market is going to be high cost due to inflationary pressure.
Often people will say that it's because of supply and demand, yet I can go and buy a new home as we speak, there are thousands of blocks of land for sale at the moment ripe and ready to build on.

If you think a cashed up Chinese investor buying up Australian property and then letting it sit idle is not artificially inflating the market then I am lost for words.
Or a dozen people bidding on a property they plan to use as a tax break.

C'mon, do is sound ethically right to borrow money to fund a purchase which you know will lose money so you can use that loss for financial gain.
Then consider it is one of the fundamental needs of human existence your playing with.
If every investor who planned to negative gear was banned from purchasing property for 6 months what do you think would happen to the market.
Ideally the value of homes would come down as the extra demand would dry up, but I would take a stab and say most owners would wait 6 months until the frenzy returned...why?

And don't tell me if it weren't for investors then renters would have no where to go, if negative gearing was removed from all but 1 investment property the excess baggage would be unloaded, the market flooded as they would become a liability and the market would adjust accordingly.

Not as many people would be reliant on landlords as they could afford their own home.

The only people who would deny this have a vested interest be it investment or the current value of their ppor.

[ILLaViTaR]

A lot of people think they wouldn't be able to hold out for the 6 months and the problem would be solved. Because once negative gearing goes, property prices drop and thus do rents and also the tenants flock to nicer homes creating vacancy issues for the landlord. Ultimately the mortgages were taken in a time when property prices were high.. ie they would now have to forclose and sell the property.

Most of them wouldn't be able to hold until the golden goose of negative gearing returned because the yields would no longer be sufficient enough to cover the mortgages/repayments and scumbags with high lvr's borrowing against as much of their own equity as possible will be screwed completely.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

If you think a cashed up Chinese investor buying up Australian property and then letting it sit idle is not artificially inflating the market then I am lost for words.
Or a dozen people bidding on a property they plan to use as a tax break.

C'mon, do is sound ethically right to borrow money to fund a purchase which you know will lose money so you can use that loss for financial gain.
Then consider it is one of the fundamental needs of human existence your playing with.
If every investor who planned to negative gear was banned from purchasing property for 6 months what do you think would happen to the market.
Ideally the value of homes would come down as the extra demand would dry up, but I would take a stab and say most owners would wait 6 months until the frenzy returned...why?

And don't tell me if it weren't for investors then renters would have no where to go, if negative gearing was removed from all but 1 investment property the excess baggage would be unloaded, the market flooded as they would become a liability and the market would adjust accordingly.

Not as many people would be reliant on landlords as they could afford their own home.

The only people who would deny this have a vested interest be it investment or the current value of their ppor.

mate...abolishing negative gearing is not the answer.

Negative gearing exists because the tax office has it's hand out for the profits when you sell..by capital gains tax.

It's only fair that if the tax office wants a slice of the pie at the end it has to chip in along the way with the risks.

Can't have it both ways else why would anyone bother investing in anything?

Imagine having ZERO rental properties available.

think of it this way also....negative gearing means that the tenant is NOT paying the rent required to service the loan for the house he is occupying.

That's why it's NEGATIVE geared.

Would tenants prefer to pay the full amount??

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by zilo

mate...abolishing negative gearing is not the answer.

Negative gearing exists because the tax office has it's hand out for the profits when you sell..by capital gains tax.

It's only fair that if the tax office wants a slice of the pie at the end it has to chip in along the way with the risks.

Can't have it both ways else why would anyone bother investing in anything?

Imagine having ZERO rental properties available.

think of it this way also....negative gearing means that the tenant is NOT paying the rent required to service the loan for the house he is occupying.

That's why it's NEGATIVE geared.

Would tenants prefer to pay the full amount??

No, if the value of houses came down, the mortgage would be smaller and therefore the rent would cover a larger %.
There will always be renters, but it should be for people who need to move out of home, and affordable so they can also save to get on the ladder.
What we have now is people paying $400pw to rent a shoe box with a view of the city and little chance of ever keeping up with housing market inflation.
And im not saying abolish it, limit it to one per tax payer.

If what you believe is true, and the tax man is happy to see some prosper at the expense of so many then that makes it even more disgusting and if stupid Aussies are happy to allow it to happen then they get what they deserve.
They are just using you as a pawn with your hard earned for their benefit.

When my old man came to Australia from Ireland in 63 he had next to nothing and 4 kids, he bought his first property, 5 acres and then built a house within 5 years. he went through a divorce in 1980 and handed the lot to his ex, he got an old International Harvester tractor.
Within 3 years he had another property, he sold the tractor for the deposit.
he did that up and sold it to buy another hobby farm, 2 acres and then built a house. Another divorce in 97 and split it 50/50.
He paid the 18%, went through the recession we had to have and was semi retired by 1984 at 51 after a workplace accident.
He even lost all his super due to some **** up at the time.

Today he owns a 2bdr single story unit in a block of 3 freehold valued at $180k, has in excess of $150k in the bank and just bought a new Focus.

Try doing that today with 2 divorces and 7 kids.

He didn't need tax breaks, he did it the old fashioned way and is comfortable and debt/stress free.
In his day you haggled for a fair price, dumb *** Aussies today will pay a premium as they must outbid that other guy and the whole time the real estate agents play them like fiddles using hype and apparently the tax man just rubs his hands together.

Who's the intelligent party in that?

[ILLaViTaR]

lol http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-...-1227038710194

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

lol http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-...-1227038710194

Lol, the money will go back into housing, if its anything like the community housing sell off in SA over the last 20 years, very little has gone back into public housing.

[mik]

I have been pondering this thread for a while, one thing that is hard to fathom is that houses are so expensive in the first place, these days they can knock a house up in no time at all, you can throw a pre fab even quicker, why should a basic house and land cost $ 400,000/500,000 or more, i suspect councils can also bear some of blame for not allowing cheaper style housing because it doesn't go with a certain style.
I'm happy to be proven wrong if that's not the case though. .

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by mik

I have been pondering this thread for a while, one thing that is hard to fathom is that houses are so expensive in the first place, these days they can knock a house up in no time at all, you can throw a pre fab even quicker, why should a basic house and land cost $ 400,000/500,000 or more, i suspect councils can also bear some of blame for not allowing cheaper style housing because it doesn't go with a certain style.
I'm happy to be proven wrong if that's not the case though. .

Lol, most 400k house and land packages are cheap ****, they just make well built fancy display homes and the masses are stunned by the shiny things.

Before we moved into the current 3 yr old we are in we were renting an old semi from a friend.
The semi was as built right down to the tap ware which was all still serviceable.
The now 6 yr old modern house and land package, which the owner tells me was built using better fixings than his other rental, is falling apart.
The cornice is all coming away, as are the skirting boards in most rooms. The towel rail fell apart, the soap dish corroded and fell off and the mixer tap in the kitchen has a rust hole half way up the spout which sprays water everywhere when you fill the sink.

No intelligent person would touch the stuff available from many builders today.
But plenty of Aussies are lining up...

[nstg8a]

In my limited (very limited) experience the council hasn't actually been that bad, it's whoever makes the covenants for the new subdivisions. Some seriously bull****e rules that do nothing but make everything look generic.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by fordmfp

So XB GS 351 Coupe is mine the same as yours? Does yours have a straight secondary arm?

Haha this thread is a laugh, full of people complaining that they have less than others, calling people busting their balls scumbags because they invest in property.

Looks like a lot of people want to live under a communism government

Limiting wealth and how many properties people are allowed to own…may be we can only have one car as well, as some lazy slob that could not be bothered doing a days work can only afford one rust bucket on their centrelink benefits

Problem is people these days want too much, four bedroom house with three car garage on the beach or CBD with new cars for each family member then they wonder why they run out of money, or they want it for nothing.

I remember when I was a kid I initially grew up in a two bedroom unit with no a/c with me and my brother sharing a bedroom till I was 14, and we had one car worth $900 that my dad drove to work, mum used to walk to the shops and carry the shopping home with me and my brothers help. Then they bought a modest three bedroom home, no garage in the suburbs and we upgraded to a $4000 car.

Now people want a new 45K car each, four bedrooms holidays, iPads, phones, computers, internet etc etc etc.

PS I own all cars in my avatar outright, and I have earned the money by working and saving.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Looks like a lot of people want to live under a communism government

Limiting wealth and how many properties people are allowed to own

.

No, how many you can negative gear.

But I note your hysteria at the idea.

[something wrong]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Haha this thread is a laugh, full of people complaining that they have less than others, calling people busting their balls scumbags because they invest in property.



Looks like a lot of people want to live under a communism government



Limiting wealth and how many properties people are allowed to own…may be we can only have one car as well, as some lazy slob that could not be bothered doing a days work can only afford one rust bucket on their centrelink benefits



Problem is people these days want too much, four bedroom house with three car garage on the beach or CBD with new cars for each family member then they wonder why they run out of money, or they want it for nothing.



I remember when I was a kid I initially grew up in a two bedroom unit with no a/c with me and my brother sharing a bedroom till I was 14, and we had one car worth $900 that my dad drove to work, mum used to walk to the shops and carry the shopping home with me and my brothers help. Then they bought a modest three bedroom home, no garage in the suburbs and we upgraded to a $4000 car.



Now people want a new 45K car each, four bedrooms holidays, iPads, phones, computers, internet etc etc etc.



PS I own all cars in my avatar outright, and I have earned the money by working and saving.

So true, up until 2yrs ago I didn't have a plasma or LCD TV, just a normal CRT TV and we still have some hand me down furniture as well,

I have a new car only because it's a package from work, we have been smashing our mortgage and will be in a good position in 2yrs and hopefully will buy another property.

Most people also go in over their heads with mortgages, just for the ability to say I live xx

By the way I am 39 with 3 kids and a wife,

[zilo]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

No, if the value of houses came down, the mortgage would be smaller and therefore the rent would cover a larger %.

What makes you think house prices will come down as a consequence of abolishing negative gearing?

Is it simply your gut feeling?

Originally Posted by BENT_8

There will always be renters, but it should be for people who need to move out of home, and affordable so they can also save to get on the ladder.
What we have now is people paying $400pw to rent a shoe box with a view of the city and little chance of ever keeping up with housing market inflation.
And im not saying abolish it, limit it to one per tax payer.

So those who can afford to invest should hold back so that those who can't afford it can catch up?

Ah....Utopia, if only the world agreed with you.

But it doesn't so that's that.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

If what you believe is true, and the tax man is happy to see some prosper at the expense of so many then that makes it even more disgusting and if stupid Aussies are happy to allow it to happen then they get what they deserve.
They are just using you as a pawn with your hard earned for their benefit.

The tax man gets his share, and he doesn't care if you don't get a fair go.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

When my old man came to Australia from Ireland in 63 he had next to nothing and 4 kids, he bought his first property, 5 acres and then built a house within 5 years. he went through a divorce in 1980 and handed the lot to his ex, he got an old International Harvester tractor.
Within 3 years he had another property, he sold the tractor for the deposit.
he did that up and sold it to buy another hobby farm, 2 acres and then built a house. Another divorce in 97 and split it 50/50.
He paid the 18%, went through the recession we had to have and was semi retired by 1984 at 51 after a workplace accident.
He even lost all his super due to some **** up at the time.

Today he owns a 2bdr single story unit in a block of 3 freehold valued at $180k, has in excess of $150k in the bank and just bought a new Focus.

Try doing that today with 2 divorces and 7 kids.

His poor luck isn't the fault of the investors who negative gear, his problem was bad choice of marital partner.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

He didn't need tax breaks, he did it the old fashioned way and is comfortable and debt/stress free.

I would be nervous in your father's financial position.
He will eventually be a centrelink recipient.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

In his day you haggled for a fair price, dumb *** Aussies today will pay a premium as they must outbid that other guy and the whole time the real estate agents play them like fiddles using hype and apparently the tax man just rubs his hands together.

Who's the intelligent party in that?

Great if you are the seller though...

[BENT_8]

Its just too easy to write if off as excess indulgence isn't it.

I mean really, the perception of renters is of people who just waste all their money and as a result just whinge that everyone else is doing so much better.

It really is a simplistic view, there are many well off renters out there.

Our 2 cars are paid for, so is our Sons which is sitting in the shed waiting for him to get off his **** and get his licence. Our household furnishings, our new camper trailer, our kayaks, infact we owe nothing apart from a small consolidation loan.
Im not even working right now and get FA from CL personally, and we still manage with plenty left for saving.

Im not begrudging anyone of anything, as the rules are now they are well within their rights, no problem.
My issue is with the people who allow this practice to thrive and as a result make it harder for MY CHILDREN who in the next decade will find themselves needing help from us to get started. Not that I would hesitate in helping them, but I shouldn't need to and that is my point.

Im not posting out of jealousy, im just shaking my head at what supposed intelligent people are doing to their own country, talk about entitlement.

[blueoval]

Im not having a go BENT, but Im scratching my head wondering what you mean....personally if I had kids, why would it be someone else's problem to help financially them if I am the responsible parent and have the power to do so as best I could?

I reckon you gotta work with what's given to you even if you don't agree with it, and then try to look at it positively.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by zilo

What makes you think house prices will come down as a consequence of abolishing negative gearing?

Is it simply your gut feeling?

Note my use of the word 'if'

What makes you think it wouldn't.

Oh, in response, Opinions are like *********.

Originally Posted by zilo

So those who can afford to invest should hold back so that those who can't afford it can catch up?

Ah....Utopia, if only the world agreed with you.

But it doesn't so that's that.

Not at all, invest elsewhere.

Originally Posted by zilo

The tax man gets his share, and he doesn't care if you don't get a fair go.

Well that's fabulous really.

Originally Posted by zilo

His poor luck isn't the fault of the investors who negative gear, his problem was bad choice of marital partner.

Poor luck, lol.
Someone who picks himself up off the floor more than once after starting with nothing isn't down on his luck.
He just came from a different era.

Originally Posted by zilo

I would be nervous in your father's financial position.
He will eventually be a centrelink recipient.

Lol, he does just fine

Originally Posted by zilo

Great if you are the seller though...

Until they go to buy again...

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by blueoval

Im not having a go BENT, but Im scratching my head wondering what you mean....personally if I had kids, why would it be someone else's problem to help financially them if I am the responsible parent and have the power to do so as best I could?

I reckon you gotta work with what's given to you even if you don't agree with it, and then try to look at it positively.

Don't scratch your head, you'll go bald.

If you've followed my posts on this subject before you will know that I have in fact already set myself up to assist my kids when the time comes.

The problem lies where in my day I could save a deposit, get a loan, buy a ppor and afford to live with the mortgage on 1 wage without help from my parents, although I did buy from my mother but at market value as verified by bank evaluation.

The fact that when my son, who just turned 16 and has been working for the same mob for 2 years, turns 18 he will need me to help him buy even the most basic of homes.
Its not about options, that has been taken away by inflated house prices.

The only people on the planet who think Aussie home values aren't inflated are Aussies.

[tut0r]

Its true, chances of buying a house on your own is exponentially harder, this is not even living near the inner suburbs, with rising electricity costs, rates etc etc its usually buy with a partner or buy and have housemates for most younglings.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

If you think a cashed up Chinese investor buying up Australian property and then letting it sit idle is not artificially inflating the market then I am lost for words.
Or a dozen people bidding on a property they plan to use as a tax break.

C'mon, do is sound ethically right to borrow money to fund a purchase which you know will lose money so you can use that loss for financial gain.
Then consider it is one of the fundamental needs of human existence your playing with.
If every investor who planned to negative gear was banned from purchasing property for 6 months what do you think would happen to the market.
Ideally the value of homes would come down as the extra demand would dry up, but I would take a stab and say most owners would wait 6 months until the frenzy returned...why?

And don't tell me if it weren't for investors then renters would have no where to go, if negative gearing was removed from all but 1 investment property the excess baggage would be unloaded, the market flooded as they would become a liability and the market would adjust accordingly.

Not as many people would be reliant on landlords as they could afford their own home.

The only people who would deny this have a vested interest be it investment or the current value of their ppor.

You do realize that if all the investors properties were not allowed and renters could now buy property it just means there are more buyers in the market which would make property prices rise anyway?

[BHDOGS]

I thought id bust out a few facts rather then just let the people blarg on about how this is better becoz i benefit from it.

Negative gearing by property investors reduced personal income tax revenue in Australia by $600 million in the 2001-02 tax year, $3.9 billion in 2004-05 and $13.2 billion in 2010-11.

House prices are not overvalued yet, but negative gearing tax breaks have added almost 9 per cent, or $44,000, to average prices, financial group Moody's Analytics has reported.

According to the ABS’ housing finance data, property investors accounted for a whopping 46% of total housing finance commitments (excluding refinancings) in the year to February 2014. Moreover, their share has more than doubled since the early-1990s, which by coincidence also covers the period when Australian home values exploded (see next chart).

[BHDOGS]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

You do realize that if all the investors properties were not allowed and renters could now buy property it just means there are more buyers in the market which would make property prices rise anyway?

thats the whole point to get people to buy there first house in the first place not rent from investors who are trying to do tax dodges isnt that a good thing.

[danzvtil]

[QUOTE=ford man xf;5198937]You do realize that if all the investors properties were not allowed and renters could now buy property it just means there are more buyers in the market which would make property prices rise anyway?[/QUOTE

IF this magical ban on investors was implemented, and pretend property values SOFTENED, maybe by 10 or 20%, heres what would happen:


1-No incentive to invest and provide rental accommodation. Less houses available to rent=more competition=RENTS WILL RISE.

2-The people renting my house wont suddenly go out and buy like they have been sprinkled with some magical prosperity dust, they A) Cant afford it even at a cheaper price B) Will have NO chance of saving any deposit C) No financial institution will loan to these people in a market where home values are falling.

3-Property values are tied into superannuation investment, so the average aussie battler will have LESS money to retire on

4-Governments will NOT increase public housing availability, they are broke, and seriously, we should all know by now that the private sector is better at providing goods and services (housing) than the bloated public sector.