- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
Julia said:Snake:
Thanks for the message.
I would never argue that negative gearing is a better alternative to positive gearing but Fleeta has provided the answer to this question.
At the time I did it, I had sufficient funds for a deposit on an investment property but certainly couldn't have bought it outright, so negatively geared it which helped to offset the very high tax I was paying at the time.
The two approaches are both perfectly valid depending on all the circumstances at the time.
Are you suggesting that if you couldn't afford to positively gear an investment property you wouldn't buy it at all?
Cheers
Julia
Julia,
Yes, Fleeta's post is a good example of why people do it. As I said I know a lot of people in the same situation. It is also representative of people who buy but can't afford.
For me, I would do what the mainstream are not doing and build up my capital by compounding, trading etc. and then buy an income producing property. I have the money to buy outright, but I need that money for trading too. So at this stage I'm compounding my capital until I can buy and trade and receive passive income from my investment property.
I must note, I wouldn't buy for the appreciation alone, but would buy for the income it provides. So, timing and location are paramount; the cash flow aspect is what I like.
This generally tends to be the way of the rich - though in Australia there is a propensity to gear negatively. I don't consider myself rich, but I do see their way of thinking. Buy what and when you can afford, and enjoy the cashflow.
Please note: I do see the benefits of negative gearing as stated by you.
Cheers
Snake