- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Posts
- 2,300
- Reactions
- 1,130
I don't blame anyone. Everyone makes their own choices.At the end of the day, people bought into the bubble, those who think like you and me didn't.
So who you blame is subjective, I find these day's, there is always someone else to blame for people's bad choices.
Sprawler, great link, the tide has turned, just read the comments, Scomo and the RBA should have pulled the heads out of each other arses to realise that how this would play out.
Houses are for shelter, everyone needs shelter, even if it is a tent. Deployment of capital should be for productive means that benefit all in our society.
At the end of the day, people bought into the bubble, those who think like you and me didn't.
So who you blame is subjective, I find these day's, there is always someone else to blame for people's bad choices.
The thing that annoys me is that some people expect property prices to go up forever. They just don't realise that if house prices exceed the capacity of people to pay then the buyers stop bidding.
It's not rocket science, perpetual motion doesn't exist.
And the scare tactic about negative gearing is just a scare tactic. It's all grandfathered, people who ng now will still be able to do it and it will still be available on new properties. I doubt if the proposed ng changes will have much effect either way.
Can you provide some insight into this statement. Given you did clearly state the short term, but still interested in your thoughts.The proposed changes to ng might actually increase property prices more than normal market/credit availability would have it now. For the short term anyway.
Can you provide some insight into this statement. Given you did clearly state the short term, but still interested in your thoughts.
Being "fully grandfathered" mean properties purchased before the law is enacted will not be affected by the proposed changes.
So those high income earners who can still afford property now will jump in to take advantage of the current generous subsidies.
Them jumping in increased property, temporarily.
I wouldn't know by how much and all that, but that's the logic I reckon.
Why was ng introduced in the first place? to add to supply of housing so people could have shelter and reduce the burden on govnuts to provide.
I support NG on new builds and think it is a positive policy for govnuts, however this ideal (current situation) has not delivered its intended ideal, instead, investors bought established properties (where the profit has been), not adding to the requirement of shelter (supply), nor adding to economic expansion, business and innovation.
You may not have bought investment properties, but from my experience, the return on new build investment properties is very low. At best you get a 5% return, without costs, at worst you have a crap tenant or no tenant.
If that was the case Luu, with the election only 6 months away, I would have thought the price movement would have started happening.
But the price fall, is accelerating, so the next six months will prove you right or wrong.
I'm willing to put money on the fact prices will fall, there is no way anyone is going to house people for minimal gain, unless it is a first time investor.
I got out of it years ago, because it was more trouble than it was worth, that was when negative gearing and CGT was o.k.
Add to that, the first time investor is going to have more difficulty getting a loan, I think you're being optimistic.
I hate forums, this is the exact reason I should not engage, for fu-ks sack, what was the reason behind NG, to add to the supply of rental accommodation by the private sector, so the govnuts didn't have to provide. This is why the policy has not worked, as it is better to invest in established properties, better CG, but not the reason for the policy.
.
Hang on a minute I didn't mean to upset you, but why should a working person invest their hard earned money into rental properties, when as you say the Government don't want to do it.
Also house sizes are at a 22 year low, well that's what the headline says, if you read the article houses are still 30% bigger than 30 years ago.
http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/78436-australian-home-size-hits-22-year-low.html
True, new builts are bigger than the old 3-bedders in the 80s. But for $1M a pop vs what... $120K? It better be. Land is way, way down though.
The build quality might not be too good either. I think the builders' engineers have been working overtime to bring the costs down. Waffle pods slabs that sit directly on the ground, would move in clayey soil if the owner decided not to concrete an apron around... plastic water/gas pipes the rats will get to after a few years.
That's just from a fair number of anecdotals.
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?