- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,100
- Reactions
- 12,710
No it isn't fine.
Limiting the number of ng properties per taxpayer would be better, don't know if Labor thought of that though.
Right, so if James Packer builds a $10m house and Murdoch builds a $10m house, then lease them to each other and claim a $9m loss that's fine?
Just about anything would have been better, than what they came up with.IMONo it isn't fine.
Limiting the number of ng properties per taxpayer would be better, don't know if Labor thought of that though.
I was expanding a bit on your comment that housing is for shelter and the nation needs to look to other things as a means of wealth creation.
I think it's a point that hasn't been well grasped at the political or general public level that simply funneling more and more money into things which already exist isn't going to make the nation prosper.
On the question of negative gearing and so on, my main concern is that property prices are now so far out of alignment with anything else that the primary focus needs to be on bringing about an orderly fix rather than an abrupt one which would have broader economic effects. So my thought is that policy change should be done with a firm eye on the market rather than for purely ideological reasons. A sudden crash won't help first home buyers if it takes the broader economy with it and puts them out of a job.
The housing bubble has grown so large that fixing it is going to take years. Either prices slowly dropping over years or an abrupt fall and then we spend years cleaning up the economic mess that results. There's no good answer but the former sounds better to to me than the latter. Either way it's going to take years though.
Just about anything would have been better, than what they came up with.IMO
Limit NG of established homes, to a maximum of $400k and a gross income of less than $150k.
People on over $150k can only NG new builds, to a maximum of $750k in total.
It isn't rocket science.
From the AFR - interesting. https://www.afr.com/real-estate/mal...pc-default-rate-on-apartments-20181218-h199jj
"In all, 97 per cent of the apartments have already sold off the plan, with about 70 per cent of those selling to offshore buyers. Prices ranged from $485,000 for a one-bed apartment to $875,00 for a two-bed, two-bath unit."
So the truth is 85% of apartments selling to offshore buyers.
And they are cheap at nearly $900K for a 2 bedroom apartment. If you want a 5% gross yield, only $865 per week, a bargain, teachers, nurses and 75% of the average wage earners can afford that. NOT
"Home prices have dropped 7 per cent in Melbourne in the last year and new apartments, which fell up to 20 per cent in value upon settlement in 2018, "
Don't see that in the papers, so the developer is saying from purchase of the plan to settlement, on a 2 bedder, I have just lost a small $175K, based on Joe - the best treasurer in the world that is only 1 years salary for the average worker.
"One of the biggest apartment developers in Melbourne – Malaysia's UEM Sunrise – is prepared for as much as a 10 per cent default rate on the settlement of apartments in its $330 million CBD tower"
That is good to hear, only 10% - bull****
But this to me shows the height of the bubble that has been created :
"Mayfair comprises 158 residences of one- to five-bedrooms, ranging in size from 70 square metres to 556 square metres. Prices start at $823,000. The penthouses are listed for up to $13.1 million."
F--k me, luxury one bedroom for $823K, would want a blow j-b every day for that price. Again 5% gross yield, over $850 per week, sounds like a bargain to me.
So it stays as a tax dodge for the rich at the expense of the poor.NG on new builds only and/or you can clam expenses on established property against the same asset class.
The ATO can police anything they wish, just check out how they police super and its changes.Great idea, just one question, how do you police your policy.
Mate you are the one who started the personal abuse.Sorry Sptrawler, I failed to understand your discussion.
Funny how you slang Labor for their policy, but if someone questions your idea, you are upset, weird world we live in.
"So it stays as a tax dodge for the rich at the expense of the poor." The rich will find another asset class to invest in, allowing your moms and dads a chance at a much reduced price.
The ATO can police anything they wish, .
Rupert is a small bear at the end of my bed, he pays no tax.Say what??? How much tax has your Mate Rupert paid? Wasn't it something like 2% or thereabouts!
From what I have read, nearly 80% of investment properties, are owned by families earning less than $150k.Please explain how, removing NG on established homes, hurts the average working man. The average working man just tries to survive, doesn't have the capacity to buy IP's.
These not get stats in the way :From what I have read, nearly 80% of investment properties, are owned by families earning less than $150k.
I know when I was working as an electrician, in a Power company, a lot of the guys had a rental property.
I support removal of NG on established homes. As others have said, this should hurt the supply of new housing stock, as tax breaks will remain for buyers of new homes.
People will still purchase existing properties and rent them out, it just means the investment will actually have to stack up in terms of rental yield, rather than relying on a tax cut as a key reason to invest.
Rupert is a small bear at the end of my bed, he pays no tax.
Say what??? How much tax has your Mate Rupert paid? Wasn't it something like 2% or thereabouts!
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?