Confidence in Australian Housing Market

[The Fence]

The point here is that you could lose a lot if you buy in now and you cannot really afford the mortgage.

Then get off your date, do some extra hours, save a bit and have a go....


I have observed this thread from start to finish and beepop you are just rampantly arguing for arguments sake...it's been done to death already...pllleeeeease...!

Like many have said here before, get something further out and start from the bottom mate...stop complaining...and yes you are complaining. There has been many very good examples of how you can get around this problem you keep complaining about...have a go...!

The market is the market is the market...you will NOT change it.

Thorpey turns beepop around, gives massage to the neck and shoulders and says...
" C'mon Mate, you CAN do it....try your hardest and you will win...now go out there and smash 'em ..."

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Negative gearing should be removed and land tax and capital gains tax drastically increased. Property investors have done ENORMOUS damage to this country which could take decades to repair.

Should we also remove the ability for businesses to deduct their expenses? Any idea what that would do to the economic landscape of this country.

I've tried to engage with you to help you understand how property investment works, but when you come back with rubbish comments like today, I don't think I'll bother trying to explain any more.

 

[lizzie]

even tho i have bop on ignore, i do see their comments when other's quote it ... and i am rather bemused by why bop thinks investors have done damage?

investors don't buy emotionally and drive prices up, like ppor buyers.

investors don't buy unless the numbers to own as an investment stack up, ppor buyers don't care about the numbers and drive the prices up.

the percentage of investment properties hasn't increased in (at least) the last 60 years - still sitting at around 30% - so the number of investment properties haven't, in relation to the percentage of buyers, hasn't increased.

the number of investors buying at any given time are less than fhb-ers.

if negative gearing didn't exist then rents would go thru the roof, or investors would bail out of investing in rentals, ergo the pressure on the government to supply inefficient public housing would become unsupportable. homeless numbers would increase significantly as the government struggled to cope ... as they found out in the late 1980's. the government considers ng the price it has to pay to be able to supply affordable housing to those on lower income. those not on lower income tend to eventually buy (but not always).

well - at last bop has shown their true colours - they are not here to learn, or engage, or factually/logically debate.

they are here purely to investor bash - i suggest they go on everyone ignore.

 

[HomePage]

investors don't buy unless the numbers to own as an investment stack up, ppor buyers don't care about the numbers and drive the prices up.

While some of you fine folk here invest on some semblence of supporting fundamentals, I know of many more that invest by effectively just throwing a dart at the nearest barely-affordable property and bank on the 'property always goes up gangbusters' mantra to make it work. It will be interesting to see how this latter crowd will survive a few years of price stagnation if that's what eventuates.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

While some of you fine folk here invest on some semblence of supporting fundamentals, I know of many more that invest by effectively just throwing a dart at the nearest barely-affordable property and bank on the 'property always goes up gangbusters' mantra to make it work. It will be interesting to see how this latter crowd will survive a few years of price stagnation if that's what eventuates.

They'll probably sell out, leaving yet more bargain deals for investors with half a clue to capitalise on.

 

[wylie]

well - at last bop has shown their true colours - they are not here to learn, or engage, or factually/logically debate.

they are here purely to investor bash - i suggest they go on everyone ignore.

.... but we knew that, didn't we? No surprises there . Bit of fun though.

 

[Beebop]

You may be too young to remember? but the Hawke-Keating government tried that with the consequence that investors left the market, rents went through the roof and hurt their voter base. It was shortly thereafter re-instated and back-dated.

On the contracry, PIs provide accommodation to renters at vastly subsidised rates. The goverment has proven that it cannot build enough housing and get enough return from it to efficiently to take care of the demand. Hence, neg. gearing and the NAHA.

Sure, sure, trickle down economics has failed to demonstrate how it benefits anyone but the rich.

 

[Beebop]

Should we also remove the ability for businesses to deduct their expenses? Any idea what that would do to the economic landscape of this country.

I've tried to engage with you to help you understand how property investment works, but when you come back with rubbish comments like today, I don't think I'll bother trying to explain any more.

No, it is a legal techicality, starting a business with the intention to make a loss so as to claim tax deduction is illegal pretty much anywhere in the world apart from Australia and Canada where housing is exempt.

 

[Beebop]

Then get off your date, do some extra hours, save a bit and have a go....


I have observed this thread from start to finish and beepop you are just rampantly arguing for arguments sake...it's been done to death already...pllleeeeease...!

Like many have said here before, get something further out and start from the bottom mate...stop complaining...and yes you are complaining. There has been many very good examples of how you can get around this problem you keep complaining about...have a go...!

The market is the market is the market...you will NOT change it.

Thorpey turns beepop around, gives massage to the neck and shoulders and says...
" C'mon Mate, you CAN do it....try your hardest and you will win...now go out there and smash 'em ..."

If you lot stop spreading mis information that would be fine. For example, I know many first home buyers, on relatively much higher incomes who are buying a lot less than what my parents (and other people like them) bought with a smaller income. People with my parents equivelant income today, would simply not be able to buy what they bought when I was a kid. This is a fact. There is no point in arguing against it unless you can present some facts to say houses are cheaper now relative to income. I'd love to see it.

Otherwise all this nonsense about first home buyers wanting the mansions in just ridiculous mantra.

 

[Luv2Travel]

No, it is a legal techicality, starting a business with the intention to make a loss so as to claim tax deduction is illegal pretty much anywhere in the world apart from Australia and Canada where housing is exempt.

Why would ANYONE want to make a loss?

The idea behind rental losses is that there is a long term gain building up. When you sell you pay capital gains tax on that gain.

Your posts are past being humerous now, you could go on Today Tonight with the big book of "1000 Excuses Why I Can't Do It".

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

No, it is a legal techicality, starting a business with the intention to make a loss so as to claim tax deduction is illegal pretty much anywhere in the world apart from Australia and Canada where housing is exempt.

No, it's not a legal technicality. It's reflective of the cost of holding an asset (depreciation) in order to gain both yield and long term capital gain. You're just sprouting uninformed rubbish.

Besides, without negative gearing, who would provide housing to millions of Australians? Many of these people can't or won't buy a home regardless of how cheap it is.

 

[wylie]

I know many first home buyers, on relatively much higher incomes who are buying a lot less than what my parents (and other people like them) bought with a smaller income. People with my parents equivelant income today, would simply not be able to buy what they bought when I was a kid. This is a fact. There is no point in arguing against it unless you can present some facts to say houses are cheaper now relative to income. I'd love to see it.

You have been given several examples. Did you read them?

 

[Beebop]

You have been given several examples. Did you read them?

So show me the data where it says houses are now cheaper ?

 

[Beebop]

Besides, without negative gearing, who would provide housing to millions of Australians? Many of these people can't or won't buy a home regardless of how cheap it is.

The majority of negative geared properties are not newly constructed dwellings.

People would still be in strife, only there would be an end of the tunnel as housing without negative gearing would be affordable. As it stands, you buy a house you can't afford and will never pay off because of the promise of capital gains which will be paid by the next sucker in line.

Negative gearing gives investors huge tax breaks so they can continue to pay ridiculous prices.

A house provides a fine return at 5% CGs per year combined with a rent increase offset of 5% per year. People are just being greedy and taking uneccesary risks for short term gains, which always leads to trouble. Negative gearing encourages this behaviour.

 

[Beebop]

Why would ANYONE want to make a loss?

The idea behind rental losses is that there is a long term gain building up. When you sell you pay capital gains tax on that gain.

Your posts are past being humerous now, you could go on Today Tonight with the big book of "1000 Excuses Why I Can't Do It".

I might be wrong or right, but that does not make the hateful barrage of logical fallacies and personal attacks seen on this forum any less laughably wrong.

Anyone who can't see a shred of risk in the current market and why a FHB would be hesitant to buy in now with the turmoil around the world economies and local sky high prices is clearly just not looking at the facts and is concentrated on past success rather than looking to the future.

You've got a tiny little economy with a lot of money floating around and the favourite is property because it is all so easy to extort young people who need a place to call home.

You've also got a tiny little economy with a LOT of debt floating around and a tightening credit market.

Eventually, you'll run out of fools.

 

[lizzie]

No, it's not a legal technicality.

it's not legal - full stop.

it is legal in both businesses and investing if the intention is to make a profit in the future, on which you will be paying tax.

if you continue to make losses - business or investing - with no profitable future, the tax office looks very poorly upon you.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

The majority of negative geared properties are not newly constructed dwellings.

So what?

People would still be in strife, only there would be an end of the tunnel as housing without negative gearing would be affordable. As it stands, you buy a house you can't afford and will never pay off because of the promise of capital gains which will be paid by the next sucker in line.

Garbage. Houses don't stay negative geared - they become more and more positive over time. You buy an investment property to use it as a powerful investment asset, not just to flip it. You clearly don't understand how property can be used as an investment. (Some people even use property to live in - gasp!)

Negative gearing gives investors huge tax breaks so they can continue to pay ridiculous prices.

No - negative gearing partially compensates investors for short term losses while they wait for positive returns.

A house provides a fine return at 5% CGs per year combined with a rent increase offset of 5% per year. People are just being greedy and taking uneccesary risks for short term gains, which always leads to trouble. Negative gearing encourages this behaviour.

What's your point? An investment asset provides a return that increases going forward. This is what your investment dollar buys you. Negative gearing is simply one of many factors to consider when investing.

You're adding nothing, arguing nothing, and contributing nothing. I won't be responding to you again.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

it's not legal - full stop.

it is legal in both businesses and investing if the intention is to make a profit in the future, on which you will be paying tax.

if you continue to make losses - business or investing - with no profitable future, the tax office looks very poorly upon you.

Agreed. Making a short term loss is simply a step along one path to future gains. Making a deliberate loss for the primary purpose of reducing or avoiding tax is illegal in Australia.

 

[Propertunity]

Anyone who can't see a shred of risk in the current market ..... with the turmoil around the world economies .....is clearly just not looking at the facts and is concentrated on past success rather than looking to the future.

Some people see a glass half full, others see a glass half empty.

If something has tended to do something in a cyclical fashion over many years in the past, then many people (including myself) believe that it will continue to do that same something (i.e. show capital growth or whatever) into the future.

There is always something looking into the future that causes people to retreat or the same thing that causes others to take action and move forward.

...the favourite is property because it is all so easy to extort young people who need a place to call home.

Property has a big place in people's hearts because of the strong desire for shelter and to nest (which is not always available in a rental property - no security of tenure, as you are only 90 days away from being out on the street).

You've also got a tiny little economy with a LOT of debt floating around and a tightening credit market.

On the contrary, the credit market is showing signs of loosening. Where do you get these ideas? I thought you were smart.

Eventually, you'll run out of fools.

Nah, there's one born every minute. Just like their are winners born every minute but some of them learn to be fools over time.

 

[Luv2Travel]

Anyone who can't see a shred of risk in the current market and why a FHB would be hesitant to buy in now with the turmoil around the world economies and local sky high prices is clearly just not

No one is criticising you for choosing not to invest because you don't believe it's a good time to invest. Everyone has, and is entitled to different opinions on what is the best investment for them.

It's the fact that you have said you want to buy, but first home buyers are priced out of the market and there's no way they can do it now and all your excuses that have gone along with it.