Sydney Silliness Warnings 2015

Article from Eureka Report was written by Adam Carr

Well here is an extract stating our ATO facts:

"Recently Property Council chief executive Ken Morrison
says it is untrue that more than half of all people with negatively geared rental housing investments are in the top 10 per cent of taxpayers."

?The actual ATO data clearly shows that at least two thirds of Australians who declare a net rental loss earn around $80,000 a year or less."

"That includes 42,000 nurses, midwives and aged care workers, 62,000 teachers and child carers, 12,300 emergency service workers and 83,000 clerical staff all earning around or below this amount."

?These are not property barons ? they are ordinary Australians saving for their future,? Morrison says"

Sometimes we cannot believe ALL we read, wouldn't you agree? I like to see the actual facts represented by ATO or our taxpayers....

MIW,

Hm.. that's interesting. The premium subscription article that I read from the Eureka Report was written by Adam Carr (http://www.eurekareport.com.au/contributor/adam-carr)
Adam Carr is a leading economist in the Australian market. In addition to being a columnist with Eureka Report, he has worked with some of the world?s largest investment banks and financial intermediaries. Adam was also formerly an economic adviser with the Prime Minister's Department and Commonwealth Treasury

So I guess, we need the information from ABS then :confused: to be fully trusted.
 
It doesn't need a wholesale selloff. Sales volumes drop severely (go to sleep as you say), followed by a few sellers who need to drop prices to get sales and down she goes. Property crashes are usually low sales volume affairs, unless the banks start dumping repossessed stuff.
I actualy agree with you in part on this.

It makes sense - if noone is selling and/or buying, and someone comes along with a bitter marriage split or business collapse or other, and has to sell their PPoR really fast, and basically will take whatever they can get, then the price it sells for sets the benchmark for other properties in the area which come up for sale around it.

But here is the gliche in that argument - and I'm using Victoria as the example; I don't know the other States rules on this - when the Bank values your home for selling purposes, or refinance etc; they only use properties which have sold and settled withing the last 6 months as a comparable.

So, if nothing similar and in the immediate area has sold within that time, the Bank won't use another property that might have been sold for waay more, or waay less.

Having said that, I have no idea how they would proceed with a valuation in the above scenario.

I hope I never have to find out, but maybe someone here has experienced it and can shed some light.

It could mean as you say; not many sales, but still a price drop of some magnitude.

But for most people (who don't have to sell) the price drops are really only an "on paper" scenario, and doesn't affect them, unless they are investors trying to maximise equity lends.
 
?The actual ATO data clearly shows that at least two thirds of Australians who declare a net rental loss earn around $80,000 a year or less."
Problem with that quote is that the 80K figure is AFTER the rental deductions. So someone on 105K with 26K of property investment deductions is "earning less than 80K".
 
But here is the gliche in that argument - and I'm using Victoria as the example; I don't know the other States rules on this - when the Bank values your home for selling purposes, or refinance etc; they only use properties which have sold and settled withing the last 6 months as a comparable.

So, if nothing similar and in the immediate area has sold within that time, the Bank won't use

from my exposure t valuation reports and valuers, they will not recognise unsettled above market transactions, they do recognise unsettled below market transactions. part of risk mitigation.

am sure I will be contradicted now:)
 
MIW,

Hm.. that's interesting. The premium subscription article that I read from the Eureka Report was written by Adam Carr (http://www.eurekareport.com.au/contributor/adam-carr)


So I guess, we need the information from ABS then :confused: to be fully trusted.

Yes, you are right, somehow I don't believe everything I read, so I just do my own little thing, trying slowly to get ahead in life, that's all.....;)
Also, coming from an IT background, I saw how data, statistics or information can be suited to what we like to present....:)
 
Problem with that quote is that the 80K figure is AFTER the rental deductions. So someone on 105K with 26K of property investment deductions is "earning less than 80K".

You are too analytical and detailed for me, it could also mean that depreciation costs are added and so on.....and land tax, etc...
I have never read the figure to represent that?
I thought top earners wouldn't vary in price by $25K that you pointed out, but some on SS just like to go into such detail, sorry, I must concentrate on larger point of view....
 
from my exposure t valuation reports and valuers, they will not recognise unsettled above market transactions, they do recognise unsettled below market transactions. part of risk mitigation.

am sure I will be contradicted now:)
Is that in Perth though, Ausprop?

Our PPoR as an example;

Earlier this year we met with our MB to look at ways to turn our ship around; restructure the debts somehow, etc.

Part of that process was a Bank valuation on the PPoR.

I met with the valuer at our house the day he came to value it, and we were discussing price, and his criteria for valuation was what I described in my above post.

There were 3 other houses sold near us, but none had settled at the time of the val, so he couldn't use them.

This may be Vic only, of course.
 
Problem with that quote is that the 80K figure is AFTER the rental deductions. So someone on 105K with 26K of property investment deductions is "earning less than 80K".
I think you might have mis-interpreted this post:

Originally Posted by MIW View Post
?The actual ATO data clearly shows that at least two thirds of Australians who declare a net rental loss earn around $80,000 a year or less."

My interpretation is that those on $80k or less then declared a loss, and had their taxable income adjusted from there.

You have read it as their nett taxable income after losses considered.

It's not really possible to get an accurate average because everyones' income situation is vastly different.
 
Is that in Perth though, Ausprop?

Our PPoR as an example;

Earlier this year we met with our MB to look at ways to turn our ship around; restructure the debts somehow, etc.

Part of that process was a Bank valuation on the PPoR.

I met with the valuer at our house the day he came to value it, and we were discussing price, and his criteria for valuation was what I described in my above post.

There were 3 other houses sold near us, but none had settled at the time of the val, so he couldn't use them.

This may be Vic only, of course.

I'm sure there is a valuer or 2 on this site that will confirm this but working in the "industry" myself I can confirm valuers cannot use comparable sales unless the property has settled. They will not look at exchanged sales when looking at comparable sales.
 
Back
Top