A mortgage is a exception, definately good debt and investment into your future. However my path in life has not allowed me one, been walking the big uphill road on my own always, hence my nick
That's right, but trust me there will be someone in the future, telling you that you were lucky and you should be penalised.When you get a mortgage you can not rely on excuses anymore at life, you have to succeed and there is no second option. It's certainly not for everyone, in fact it's relentless. I did the whole thing completely on my own tho which probs makes it a bit harder (or not). When you get it done and dusted you will walk two inches taller.
there is something to be said for starting young but if your not ready then your not ready.
that consumer spending will drop soon enough , expect buying limits soon ( maybe even rationing ) reduced goods on shelves and reduced money available for consumer discretionary spendingA few Canaries in the Mine are dropping off aren't they @over9k ? Building Permits down to -18.5 from 42 Business and Consumer Confidence down. Is Inflation the only thing keeping us going - it's buy now effect on Consumers?
Employment figures out Thursday (for Aus).
BRUTAL , but probably true in the not so distant futureThat's right, but trust me there will be someone in the future, telling you that you were lucky and you should be penalised.
The sad part will be, the media will agree with them and whatever you say will be taken as you just being a rich person who doesn't understand how hard it is.
That unfortunately is what Australia has become, if you manage to get ahead, you are reminded of those that didn't get ahead and you should contribute to help those to achieve what you have.
It is a very noble cause and my youngest son has tapped into it extremely well, which I am pleased to say has taken the burden off my shoulders. ?
That definitely appears to be the way we are heading, whether by design or by accident, I really don't know.wait until Communism hits here , NOBODY will do more than the bare minimum ( and some will regularly do less than that )
by design in some cases , but also as a consequence of policies made inside and outside AustraliaThat definitely appears to be the way we are heading, whether by design or by accident, I really don't know.
40y of unrelenting socialism in France with very few at best center right govs intervals, a country in complete downfall on all criterias you can imagine and surviving on the back of yet people either want more of it . Macron or even vote more leftist via Mélenchon.by design in some cases , but also as a consequence of policies made inside and outside Australia
but is has been a progressive trend over a long time ( although it MIGHT be exponential soon )
the tragic part is there had been several historic examples to warn us about this path ( not just the Soviet Union )
40y of unrelenting socialism in France with very few at best center right govs intervals, a country in complete downfall on all criterias you can imagine and surviving on the back of yet people either want more of it . Macron or even vote more leftist via Mélenchon.
Until a country reaches total economic collapse like former USSR, Venezuela: you will always find a majority of people ready to steal from a minority.. until there is absolutely nothing left...pun..
Australia is just starting and inflation will give more and more place to real or perceived sufferings which will accelerate the trend..all for the benefit of this cronyism socialism taking over the world
Yes, provided that you can ride out the interest rate increases which normally come with inflation and that your debt is held at interest rates that aren’t above the rate of inflation.Dumb question but doesn't inflation make debt go away in the sense that the average income was $100 and you have a debt of $10 then due to inflation you now have an income of $1000 so the original $10 is "less" money comparative to your current income.
It's why everyone laughed in Austin Powers when the out of touch bad guy stuck in the old days threatened world leaders with a ransom of a million dollars and they all laughed in his face at the once astronomical ransom value has become an unimpressive figure - the leaders all talk in trillions now.
If they are holding their savings in currency/cash then they will lose purchasing power to inflation, if they are holding real assets they will largely be protected and their purchasing power should stay the same or Increase with investment earnings.What about the people that have managed to save $x to spend in retirement, unless it has been invested successfully at a gain that $x dollars over time has lost value so it affects a lot more people than you mentioned.
Fixed income is a bit misleading because wages always increase and so does welfare. They may or may not increase as fast but no income is fixed according to history.
The winners are the rich investors picking up the carnage of those gone broke and the poor who spend every cent they get and save nothing.
The majority in the middle lose because they save instead of spend and lack the means to buy up the carnage left by defaulters.
I think communism is inevitable or at least a society that is highly regulated/controlled on personal and financial freedoms.It is really the opposite in communism, on paper everybody is equal, in practice 1% own 99% they rob from the majority.
that is how 'Capitalism ' is turning out , but not how 'free capital markets ' workIt is really the opposite in communism, on paper everybody is equal, in practice 1% own 99% they rob from the majority.
The trick I believe is to be in control of the fist that controls out of control capitalism.If they are holding their savings in currency/cash then they will lose purchasing power to inflation, if they are holding real assets they will largely be protected and their purchasing power should stay the same or Increase with investment earnings.
I agree the costs of ownership need to be weighed against the cost of renting, however most people do those sums incorrectly.A mortgage is only good debt, when it is weighed against what it costs, take for example someone who works in a city and rents an apartment for $600/week.
That apartment may be worth $1.3m to buy + say $10k a year in associated costs.
Right what if that person took a loan out to buy that apartment, how much better off would he be? I wont do the sums, because I'm lazy.
Now what if that person borrowed $600k and bought a 4x2 out in the suburbs, close to transport,schools and facilities and rented it out at $500/wk?
He stayed in the apartment at $600 and got a mate in to share the rent.
Not saying it is for everyone, but I'm not a great believer in borrowing upto the eyeballs to buy your house, which isn't deductable and is really only saving you rent.
I would rather go bush, earn mega bucks and rent, then at the same time buy an investment property that I want to move into eventually, than stay in the city on the treadmill and try and pay for it with after tax dollars while I live in it.
Just different ways of looking at the same issue IMO, there isn't a right and a wrong, only what suits your circumstances and sacrifices.
the SIZE of the 'C' makes a big difference to the outcome , commune is where a group of people group together for mutual benefit , some members are good at baking bread , others better at farming , still other efficient at building fences and buildings and by using the best people for a skill allows others the ability to efficiently utilize their talents alsoI think communism is inevitable or at least a society that is highly regulated/controlled on personal and financial freedoms.
look who's breeding the most at least in Australia. Seeing a large family is becoming rarer than all previous generations but if you do see a large family the odds in Australia are pretty high that you can guess the source of the revenue stream supporting them.
"Our Royal Family" ????the SIZE of the 'C' makes a big difference to the outcome , commune is where a group of people group together for mutual benefit , some members are good at baking bread , others better at farming , still other efficient at building fences and buildings and by using the best people for a skill allows others the ability to efficiently utilize their talents also
a commune shares resources and outcomes , sure , but MEMBERS are not automatically equal in talents and skills , just in the share of benefits of the combined efforts
Communism introduces a regulatory/administrative class and immediately inefficiency creeps into the mix , a 'politburo' meets ponders and decides on what to do next , whereas a commune would immediately drop everything to fight a major fire , a politburo would need to organize a team etc etc , and response to the fire is slower and less instinctive ( taking away chances of adaptive improvements DURING the crisis )
BTW large families are a feature of societies with high mortality rates.
the idea in nature is the successful genetics survive and improve the chances to carry on the bloodlines , large families in a society that is stable and secure tends to drain the natural resources of the area ( eat themselves out of house and home ) in the medium term .
SADLY this trend in nature is not leveraged , where we could improve survival conditions in impoverished nations and thus slowly reduce population increases naturally ( reducing the drain of natural resources )
BUT this comes at a different cost the intense pressure on survival removed , genetics without a competitive advantage , are tolerated and multiplied ( look at our Royal Family could you see any of them leading an army from the front ala Napoleon Bonaparte )
BTW large families are a feature of societies with high mortality rates.
Actually in the book “factfullness” they debunk the theory that religion and ethnicity determine birth rates, with out going into detail to much, they studied groups of the same ethnic and religious back grounds and found that even with in those same groups birth rates dropped depending on how educated their women were and their access to health care.Not always while it is a feature of populations with high mortality there are more factors eg religion, ethnicity, politics, education.
For example two people with roughly same education, money, environment...etc the more conservative person (politically right leaning) is more fertile than their left leaning counterpart. Pew research has investigated this thoroughly. Religious people in first world countries tend to be more fertile than atheists as well normalising for all other factors.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?