Been looking at the FHSA. Not sure if readers aware of legal "scam". Put in $5500 one day before end of financial year to get $935 govt bonus for that year. Next day, new financial year, stick in another $5500. So in one years time:
$5500 + $5500 + $935 = $11,935
5.5% interest for one year = $656.42
Minus 15% tax = $557.96
Second govt bonus (2012/13) = $935
TOTAL PROFIT = $2427.96
Basically a 22% profit on $11,000 in one year and one day, zero risk. Drops to something like 12% in second year and 9% in third. Great for me cos saving for three more years for home anyway, but check details for yourselves. Combined with a stagnant or dropping RE market, could work out very nice. Hence the confirmation bias
The First Home Owners Grant (FHOG) and First Home Saver Account apply provided you have not lived in a property you own - so if none of your IPs were a residency at any point then you can claim the government subsidies. Although for the FHOG you cant have purchased Residential Property prior to 1990. You can purchase after 1990 but must not have lived in it.
Also note that this is for Victoria and eligibility may vary in other states.
Been looking at the FHSA. Not sure if readers aware of legal "scam". Put in $5500 one day before end of financial year to get $935 govt bonus for that year. Next day, new financial year, stick in another $5500. So in one years time:
$5500 + $5500 + $935 = $11,935
5.5% interest for one year = $656.42
Minus 15% tax = $557.96
Second govt bonus (2012/13) = $935
TOTAL PROFIT = $2427.96
Basically a 22% profit on $11,000 in one year and one day, zero risk. Drops to something like 12% in second year and 9% in third. Great for me cos saving for three more years for home anyway, but check details for yourselves. Combined with a stagnant or dropping RE market, could work out very nice. Hence the confirmation bias
Why am I not surprised that property spruikers need the continued 'support' of the taxpayer for the ponzi to perpetuate. Isn't there anyone with ethics and morals any more who can resist the temptation to once again scam the system? Just glad I'm not a Victorian taxpayer, although we probably have a similar taxpayer funded subsidy here in NSW that non genuine first home buyers can rort also?
Why am I not surprised that property spruikers need the continued 'support' of the taxpayer for the ponzi to perpetuate. Isn't there anyone with ethics and morals any more who can resist the temptation to once again scam the system? Just glad I'm not a Victorian taxpayer, although we probably have a similar taxpayer funded subsidy here in NSW that non genuine first home buyers can rort also?
In addition to Cynics excellent response, why should I be penalised because I have chosen to derive an income from property? Should we start banning developers, flippers, renovaters, etc from receiving these benefits too? After all, they need to purchase property to derive their income.
Like you, i need somewhere to live and when I can afford it, i will purchase a PPOR. The scheme is available to all members of the public and comes out of the taxes i pay as well. Would you ban students from receiving government handouts? They too are investing (in themselves) in the hope that future returns will outweigh short term losses.
I should have been paying more attention to some of your previous posts. Did you say that you have received the FHOG to buy an IP? OR did you say that even though you have bought an IP that you will be eligible for the FHOG in the future if and when you buy your PPOR ?
The latter: Even though I have bought an IP I am still eligible for the FHOG in the future if and when I buy a PPOR.
You and your spouse have:
never been paid the first home owner grant
before 1 July 2000, not owned residential property in Australia
from 1 July 2000, not lived in residential property (in Australia) you have owned.
OH really? Which state do you live in ? In WA the moment your name hits the title of the property the FHOG goes with this purchase. As in you cannot buy an IP then buy a PPOR and claim FHOG. I might have to buy some property in your state??? In QLD it is the same. (only commercial stuff there)
http://www.osr.qld.gov.au/first-home-owner-grant/eligibility-fhog/index.shtml
I was of the understanding that once your name is on ANY title you have ruled yourself ineligible?
You and your spouse have:
1) never been paid the first home owner grant
2) before 1 July 2000, not owned residential property in Australia
3) from 1 July 2000, not lived in residential property (in Australia) you have owned.
Eligibility to open an account
not have previously owned a home in Australia or Norfolk Island that has been your main residence
If you have already owned a home but you have never lived in it, for example you owned an investment property, you are still eligible to open an account.
Wait a few years and the First Home Owners bribe will pay for your house in total.
I wonder what would happen if the Australian bank's got creative (like certain banks in US) and created a security based on bundled mortgages that could then be shorted?
Well I would have thought that was well documented already with what happened in the US. I also recall NAB did cop a sting through some overseas involvement in the same.
And recently LG got out of home finance here recently and I think from memory onsold theirs to Westpac. It was in the beginning from Wizard who did see the writing on the wall early.
That's exactly what I'm doing Greebly24Just signed up for the account - looking to have it up and running before end of June so I can pop in the $5500 and get $935 straight away.
Just FYI the account has to be set up outside of the bank branch system as the ATO has to confirm eligibility before it can be set up. So if you're hoping to get in before end of this month don't delay or it may not get set up in time!
Uncle Festivus said:Isn't there anyone with ethics and morals any more who can resist the temptation to once again scam the system? Just glad I'm not a Victorian taxpayer, although we probably have a similar taxpayer funded subsidy here in NSW that non genuine first home buyers can rort also?
Saturday 18th June 2011
The clearance from this weekends 598 auctions is 54 per cent. This shows that in all except a few circumstances buyers continue to be cautious when bidding and sellers are unlikely to have their price expectations exceeded, even when the home is sold.
Of the 598 auctions reported a total of 321 sold and 277 were passed in, 194 of those on a vendors bid.
This weekend last year saw a clearance rate of 68 per cent.
Next weekend another 670 auctions are expected.
Enzo Raimondo
CEO REIV
Only 321 sold so far out of 700 "expected" auctions this weekend (102 auctions "not reported" - we know what that means). So, I make that a dismal 45% success rate.
Question is, how low will the clearance rate go - especially after the next couple of rate increases?
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?