WebBoard
25-06-2001, 05:11 PM
<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="1" ><b>From:</b> Todd Dick</font>
Hi
What a great forum. I have a quick question.
I currently do not own either my own home or an IP. I am currently trying to decide, what is the best way forward: 1) buying my first place as an owner occupier residence to live in, or 2) buying my first place as an IP and continue renting?
My strategy is I want to have an IP in roughly 2-3 years. I am curious, which way forward would be better exploring number 1 or 2.
Some things I have been thinking about are:
1a) If I buy a place as an owner occupier I have the ability to apply for the government 1st home owner grant of $14,000. If I live in and sell the place a few years later (to buy an IP) I may be able to walk away with a small profit if growth in the property works in my favour (and given I do not have to pay capital gains tax on any profit).
2a) If I buy the place as an IP I have the opportunity of using tax advantages including negative gearing, writing off interest on the loan, (I would be probably taking out an IO for the IP) purchase costs, etc, and after 2-3 years, I still have an IP (or maybe 2-3 by this stage). The disadvantage is that I will continually have to pay rent (money going into someone elses pocket) and do not qualify for the $14,000 grant as I would in number 1.
At the end of 2-3 years, can someone tell me what they think which one is the better approach?
Much Thanks,
TD
Hi
What a great forum. I have a quick question.
I currently do not own either my own home or an IP. I am currently trying to decide, what is the best way forward: 1) buying my first place as an owner occupier residence to live in, or 2) buying my first place as an IP and continue renting?
My strategy is I want to have an IP in roughly 2-3 years. I am curious, which way forward would be better exploring number 1 or 2.
Some things I have been thinking about are:
1a) If I buy a place as an owner occupier I have the ability to apply for the government 1st home owner grant of $14,000. If I live in and sell the place a few years later (to buy an IP) I may be able to walk away with a small profit if growth in the property works in my favour (and given I do not have to pay capital gains tax on any profit).
2a) If I buy the place as an IP I have the opportunity of using tax advantages including negative gearing, writing off interest on the loan, (I would be probably taking out an IO for the IP) purchase costs, etc, and after 2-3 years, I still have an IP (or maybe 2-3 by this stage). The disadvantage is that I will continually have to pay rent (money going into someone elses pocket) and do not qualify for the $14,000 grant as I would in number 1.
At the end of 2-3 years, can someone tell me what they think which one is the better approach?
Much Thanks,
TD