quick, aint ya?
Why Australia's housing sector is different..
- Thread starter mech81
- Start date
quick, aint ya?
I think it’s more that everyone is coming across as children, both the bulls and bears.
This is exactly what happened on the Global House Price Crash form back in 2007 but in reverse.
Being a reformed bull who is now on the dark side I think you all need to have a bit more of an open mind, investing is not about following one path blindly, it’s about making the best use of all information available to you.
If you’re feeling threatened by one lone bear then chances are you have taken on too much risk and could stand to do some thinking about your situation.
Did you read my post previous to this one? I recommend you do, as it already addresses the point you've made here.
Hmm agreed... not sure what all the fuss is.
To the question, are your taxes bankrolling my properties?
Yes they are. Thanks so much
One of my first comments here was that house prices are less affordable than they used to be. When I made this point, most members responded by attacking me and claiming I was wrong. Then after a few days they all ended up agreeing with me that houses are less affordable now, but they continued attacking me personally for making the initial factual comment anyway!
That was in direct response to the baiting personal remark that Belbo was guilty of:
'I wish DH all the best with whatever the hell it is he's campaigning for. It'll doubtlessly be worth every cent of the public pension we'll end up funding for him.'
But I'm not surprised you failed to notice, after all I only quoted his initial comment once in my original response, and didn't make it bold or in red ink last time. I'll remember to highlight things more visibly for you in future so you don't jump to incorrect conclusions again.
Obviously the facts haven't sunk in yet, when people here were still convinced affordability hadn't worsened, and it took me several days to make them understand they were wrong about that. So it's worth bringing some things up again if people forget the past lengthy discussions so easily.
At least you're honest about it. How many others can say the same?
How sustainable is the housing market when investors need negative gearing and grants and low interest rates to prop it up. Take away any of those props and the whole scheme collapses. Not that I'm claiming that will happen any time soon, the government is committed to propping up the bloated housing sector regardless of the cost to society.
Can you guarantee you'll end up paying more tax than most property investors? Didn't think so. I think you're just here to get as many bites as you can, so you'll have to excuse some for being a little short. (Or rude, which is usually funnier)
Most of us here are open to rational discussions, however the particular poster in question has proved that this is not what he wishes. While not able to answer for others in this forum, I feel a little used and abused when he takes my words and installs them into his own blog for his own purposes. That is more than a little wrong in itself.
There are thousands of threads on this forum and guess what? Some of them actually discuss market ecconomics.
This forum has people from all walks of life who are at all different stages of their investing life. Some experienced, some novices, some with large portfolios and some with nothing at all except a desire to learn about how property might be able to benefit themselves. Some of us Buy & Hold, some renovate, some buy & sell, some try to time the market, some don't. The one thing that we should all have in common, however, is a love of property investing because this site is a Property Investing Forum.
Many of us have been around here for years. We are not scared or threatened by this poster. We have seen it all before, many times. What I personally find so offensive about this poster is what I find offensive of others of his elk. The thought that somebody so ill informed could come here and through his rantings disuade somebody new to the game that is just in the learning stages. Newbies deserve to learn the good and the bad and ask questions of the more experienced investors, not get a bombardment of missinformation. If the experienced investors don't stand up and "tell it like it is" then all the newbies get is the views of DH.
Well, I'm positively geared, so I actually pay more tax due to my investments, so figure that into your whole "cost to society".
.
Without property investors, the government would have to fund a whole heap of public housing for the masses. The cost to society would be astronomical.
Why would I be anything but honest about it?
I use NG because it is there to be used, But it is a very minor consideration
when it comes to investing in any class of investment.
Invested during times of high interest and low interest rates and never needed NG or grants to prop my investments up.
You are rather naive if you think the housing market has ever been or will
ever be free from government interference
I am sure DH would enjoy having many many large housing commission flats all around the suburbs to accommodate this to improve everyone's quality of life
Oh yeah,, you told us hey...LOL!
Oh I'm sure you will keep us well informed....must admit we do need reminding why we are doing this....so we can not turn out like you my blogger friend.
hahahahaha considering everyone that files a tax return for a neg geared property at least half understands where that "negative" bit is coming from, i would say "everyone" would admit it.
if the govt is going to legally dish out taxpayers money to fund my investments, are you saying i should say "no thanks"?
Another ill-informed remark. Do you think experienced property investors have not considered this stuff over and over? Do you really think that removal of grants would make a huge difference? Should we perhaps artificially increase interest rates? What would that do to business, or the economy in general? And which parts of the property market could be impacted? The whole thing, or select parts? Why? There's way more to the story that you don't seem to be considering here.
FWIW, I also run a positively geared property portfolio, and have never used negative gearing as a reason to buy an investment property (not out of any altruistic reasoning either).
It just boils down to simple jealousy. 'I want that massive beach house in Albert Park for $300k and it costs $2m because of greedy property investors'
I'm looking forward to reading DH's updated blog with all he will have learnt in this thread based on the replys so far.
Oh and in answer to the question "Originally Posted by Different Here
I wonder if my taxes are presently supporting your negatively geared 'portfolio'? "
I'd suggest even though i am neutral cash flow and slightly negative(with Dep'n), given i still pay more tax than the average wage, my guess is my taxes are propping you up and paying for my own negative gearing at the same time. What a wonderful citizen i am
Oh and in answer to the question "Originally Posted by Different Here
I wonder if my taxes are presently supporting your negatively geared 'portfolio'? "
I'd suggest even though i am neutral cash flow and slightly negative(with Dep'n), given i still pay more tax than the average wage, my guess is my taxes are propping you up and paying for my own negative gearing at the same time. What a wonderful citizen i am
i'd like to see how those that oppose neg gearing would structure the new social housing requirement as private rentals are pulled from the market as investors move back into them so they can cap their CGT on sale.
after all, no private rentals would see rents skyrocket and supply dwindle which would force many marginalised people into social housing (sorry, the queue for social housing) , as the missus doesn't want some dero living in her house if they're just going to move back there in 6 month's time.
scrapping neg gearing was tried before and it failed, abysmally. why?
because partially funding an investor's shortfall is 20x cheaper than wholly funding new homes and maintenance of social tenants.
after all, no private rentals would see rents skyrocket and supply dwindle which would force many marginalised people into social housing (sorry, the queue for social housing) , as the missus doesn't want some dero living in her house if they're just going to move back there in 6 month's time.
scrapping neg gearing was tried before and it failed, abysmally. why?
because partially funding an investor's shortfall is 20x cheaper than wholly funding new homes and maintenance of social tenants.
I don't think you could say that it's all jealousy though, although I'm sure that plays a part. I think there is a lot of missinformation out there and a lot of very niave people, including our friend DH that believe all the stereotypes.
Similar threads
