Um Token Funder, you say:
"Business don't get to offset losses from PAYG earnings. Set up a company, submit yourself to the same regulatory and tax environment and then you can claim to be running a business.
Businesses (as a consequence of the above) don't deliberately structure their affairs to make a cash-flow loss."
ANY company or business or even employees can offset thier losses!
The same basic formula of revenue - expenses = profit
And we are all taxed on this profit!
So when businesses & emloyees are not allowed to make claims on thier tax returns, then ill say property investors shouldn't be allowed to make claims either.
Like many if not most property investors, i would rather have a heap of profitable properties working for me than a heap of negative earning properties... i'd be using that +ve cash to just get another one or two of course but i could say the same thing about other businesses or companies.
And dave99, you say:
"Again, I want to stress my point. If you don't build a house, you don't provide a house. You just take over ownership of a house that's already there. You don't provide any more housing than there was before you got there."
Lets pretend that there is only one house left in australia, and i buy it, and rent it out.
And lets just say that there is only one other buyer in australia, looking for a place to live, and i took it. He is now forced to build, while i sit there with this empty house available that i am providing for rent.... ah look, babies are growing up & immigrants coming from the airport, problem solved.
If i built a new house, then he would have simply had the choice to either build a new house, or buy that only available existing house.
If he bought that only available house, and i was forced to build a new one, can i say that he is guilty of not providing housing? Is he guilty of selfishly not providing a new house?
If anything, i'd say that everytime existing houses are bought, there is one less existing house on the market, which just increases the demand for others to build new houses.
So buying an existing house puts pressure on new houses to be built.
Buying an exisiting house promotes the growth in the number of exisiting houses!
So it still is providing housing! If the buyers need a house to rent for 6 months while the new house is built, then no problem! Landlords are providers in more ways than 1!
Even if i don't rent out the house, i just keep it as my holiday house, then i am still promoting growth of the number of houses, as it is still just putting more pressure on others to build a new house.
If i buy an existing house, and subdivide, or build an apartment block, well, then i'm the santa clause of housing provision aren't I?
"Business don't get to offset losses from PAYG earnings. Set up a company, submit yourself to the same regulatory and tax environment and then you can claim to be running a business.
Businesses (as a consequence of the above) don't deliberately structure their affairs to make a cash-flow loss."
ANY company or business or even employees can offset thier losses!
The same basic formula of revenue - expenses = profit
And we are all taxed on this profit!
So when businesses & emloyees are not allowed to make claims on thier tax returns, then ill say property investors shouldn't be allowed to make claims either.
Like many if not most property investors, i would rather have a heap of profitable properties working for me than a heap of negative earning properties... i'd be using that +ve cash to just get another one or two of course but i could say the same thing about other businesses or companies.
And dave99, you say:
"Again, I want to stress my point. If you don't build a house, you don't provide a house. You just take over ownership of a house that's already there. You don't provide any more housing than there was before you got there."
Lets pretend that there is only one house left in australia, and i buy it, and rent it out.
And lets just say that there is only one other buyer in australia, looking for a place to live, and i took it. He is now forced to build, while i sit there with this empty house available that i am providing for rent.... ah look, babies are growing up & immigrants coming from the airport, problem solved.
If i built a new house, then he would have simply had the choice to either build a new house, or buy that only available existing house.
If he bought that only available house, and i was forced to build a new one, can i say that he is guilty of not providing housing? Is he guilty of selfishly not providing a new house?
If anything, i'd say that everytime existing houses are bought, there is one less existing house on the market, which just increases the demand for others to build new houses.
So buying an existing house puts pressure on new houses to be built.
Buying an exisiting house promotes the growth in the number of exisiting houses!
So it still is providing housing! If the buyers need a house to rent for 6 months while the new house is built, then no problem! Landlords are providers in more ways than 1!
Even if i don't rent out the house, i just keep it as my holiday house, then i am still promoting growth of the number of houses, as it is still just putting more pressure on others to build a new house.
If i buy an existing house, and subdivide, or build an apartment block, well, then i'm the santa clause of housing provision aren't I?