Search results

Expect to hear more on this in coming weeks: http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/greens-move-senate-debate-housing-affordability-hockey-takes-leave-reality

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/negative-gearing-labor-preparing-ground-for-changes-as-think-tank-proposal-estimates-293b-saving-20150610-ghkpap.html I don't know that projecting 10 years worth of budget savings is a good idea, a move like this would be likely to...

No government is elected or ditched based on a single policy decision.

IMO it's inevitable change to NG will come. Most likely restricted to new builds. Labor talking about it. Xenophon has mentioned. Now Greens on board... maybe not with current government in power, do you reckon they'll make it through the next election?

lol good luck getting rid of CGT... ya dreaming.

Only if turnover remains constant. Hint: It doesn't.

It would never happen like that (flipped switch, so pointless to speculate) and the scenario you provided isn't detailed enough for even the most experienced analyst to answer... The Senate enquiry into Housing Affordability was a start on finding the right policy mix to correct the...

Yes, but as I said, my position won't change post purchase. I see the combination of their policies being the enabler. Just look at when the major price swings occurred (i.e. after CGT discount bought in, after FHOB, when interest rates are lowered, etc). It is their responsibility to...

Nope. I don't blame investors, I blame government. Negative Gearing. Capital Gains Tax Discount. Foreign Investor Rules (& Enforcement Of). First Home Owner Grants or Concessions. Urban Growth Boundaries. Construction/Development Taxes & Costs (Including Red Tape). The one thing that...

Here is an interesting chart showing the influence of investors in the current (established) market (obviously nationwide trend is being driven by a couple of key capitals at present): Australian investor lending for established properties jumped 104% in four years...

lol pretty far off there BV. Renting (for last 5+ years, but have owned before), slightly higher than mid 20s, above median wage (x2), cool post code doesn't matter too much to me, but close to CBD/beach is preferable, could easily acquire property in desired suburb (choose not to as personal...

Typically the highest yielding properties are in the lower socio economic areas... so those most vulnerable are already paying "high rents". I would like to see a reversal of this trend... investors prepared to wear short term losses via negative gearing to speculate on price appreciation &...

So if negative gearing is limited to new homes only, what happens to the established stock? Who does it get sold to? Of course there is a need for rentals, but the balance is clearly out of whack in some cities (for example Sydney when stats show new finance is circa 50% investors).

While they haven't "jumped at the plan" there have been indications it will be considered if any changes are made to negative gearing...

Supply comes from investment in newly constructed homes, I'd support NG remaining for new homes (with a limit, perhaps 5 years). Most investors buy established. Easy to adjust the price you are prepared to pay for a property so that you aren't losing money short term.

It's a combination of factors, but favourable tax policy is definitely a major factor in Australia. Prices have been driven up across the board, making housing more expensive (less/unaffordable) for everyone in regional areas, outer suburbs & inner suburbs. Rents are set by the market...

What can I say, I'm a sucker for punishment :D I post regularly in the economic/policy threads, but read more than I post. Don't expect my position to change on negative gearing, even once I've bought a couple of properties in the years ahead :p

Most of the discussion in this thread is use of opinion to persuade on a subjective topic, not sure where I said it was anything else... so I can disagree with what I like. But there are facts being used at times. For example BV refuses to acknowledge that house prices measured in real terms...

I didn't say 100% risk free (my view is that it's relative as explained). Your example of treasury bonds being the only affordable asset is confusing then, they are not risk free.

By your definition a Ferrari is an affordable car, because those who've done the hard yards and saved carefully can buy one. I don't agree with that measure or definition as it relates to property (or cars). In my view affordability is relative. Relative to local history and other global...