This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of Australian property prices

Jump to new
I have no problem with the negative gearing changes proposed but also think the capital gain tax reduction is a bit of a problem considering the high marginal tax rates we already have. I think it should be rethought.
 
On basic figures, train drivers in Sydney are on $95k, but apparently with allowances they get $130k and the ones who chase O/T $185k.
But getting back to where we started, I made an off the top of the head example, of how the NG could be tweaked to have a less dramatic effect.
I didn't do a thesis on it, the numbers were chosen as an example, the $150k was I thought reasonable for a working married couple to aspire to.
Then above that I would class as becoming well off.
You have got all out of shape about it, God knows why, did Labor commission you to come up with the idea? You certainly are behaving like you have skin in the game. Lol
 
Once again, be careful making assumptions, I work with data/numbers only and based on the figures I do make assumptions
I was a liberal supporter for most of my life, now I only vote for one party and it is not labor, it is the sex party - why, the more sex people have, the happy they are.
 
I normally keep out of these "personal" debates as a matter of principle but I'll make an exception.

White collar, blue collar, dog collar or anything else tells you something about the persons business or employment but tells you absolutely noting about the integrity or intelligence of the individual.

Never judge books by their covers.
 
One of the best quotes I have ever heard, was on a pretty average movie, starring an actor I don't particularly like( but the other half does).

It was 'Under Siege'.

The quote was, ' assumption is the mother of all f#&K ups'.
That has to be one of the classic statements.IMO
 
Knobby22 said:
I have no problem with the negative gearing changes proposed but also think the capital gain tax reduction is a bit of a problem considering the high marginal tax rates we already have. I think it should be rethought.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, if the capital gains tax discount is abolished, we should not have to pay tax on capital gains at our marginal rate.

Imagine if the government attempted to add 10 years of a workers income into 1 Years tax return and then charged them tax at the highest marginal rate as if it was all earned in that one year.

That basically what would be happening to investors if we didn’t have the discount.

The discount just limits tax on capital gains to 22.5%, which is still higher than other countries like the USA that limit cap gains tax to 15%.
 
That is the whole issue, this is a stock forum, so everyone takes exception to the CG issue, if it was a real estate Forum, they would take exception to both the NG and CG.
Just shows no one cares as long as it doesn't affect them.
By the way, neither bother me, the franking credit does.lol
 

I don’t have a problem with NG either, both shares and property can be negatively geared.

What do you mean by franking credit bothers you? Are you for or against the changes.

Personally I am against the changes to franking credits also.
 
Value Collector said:
I don’t have a problem with NG either, both shares and property can be negatively geared.

What do you mean by franking credit bothers you? Are you for or against the changes.

Personally I am against the changes to franking credits also.
Click to expand...

I'm against the changes, mainly because I structured my retirement, taking into account the existing conditions. The constant meddling just erodes the capital faster, which in turn will force retirees, to avail themselves of the pension sooner.
Unless they change the access criteria, yet again, which wouldn't suprise me.
That is the thing nowadays, you can't trust a word they say, which makes planning ahead very difficult.
 
sptrawler said:
NT and W.A have a lot of mine related work, it does pay well, this tends to force up wages in the other areas to hold workers.
Like I said my mate is a council garbo and reckons he will crack $100k this year.
Click to expand...
Had a beer with a local Garbo last night he wants to know what council pays that?
 
Humid said:
Had a beer with a local Garbo last night he wants to know what council pays that?
Click to expand...

I reckon Homer just wanted to lure us all over to Perth so he can unload his properties

Heard of a couple enterprising garbo picking up extra cash during their normal paid rounds.

They see houses under construction and, for $100 a pop, would take the owner's trash too.
 
sptrawler said:
Unless they change the access criteria, yet again, which wouldn't suprise me. That is the thing nowadays, you can't trust a word they say, which makes planning ahead very difficult.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the actual rules I do see a very definite problem with change for the sake of change.

For the past ~30 years the message has been that we all need to fund our own retirement, the pension won't be enough and may even be hard to get.

Now all of a sudden the message seems to be that the pension is the way to go.

The issue here isn't so much about the detail but about the shifting goal posts. It's the same as the debacle in the energy industry - there's a lack of willingness to invest or even to simply maintain existing facilities when policy keeps changing as often as it has.

We need stability in government and policies with a bipartisan approach to things like this.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Now all of a sudden the message seems to be that the pension is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that.

Some people want the superannuation guarantee levy lifted from 9% to 12% . This seems to be an encouragement or compulsion to invest in super rather than rely on the pension. Maybe its even more intrusion by government into people's financial affairs, but left to their own devices a lot of people will spend hard early with the knowledge that the pension is there to fall back on.

So it's a bit of a cleft stick either way. Force people to contribute to super throughout their lives, or face an ever increasing pension bill.
 

It's just a way for Labor to hand more cash to the finance industry.

I did my maths thing and figured that if our fund managers were to return that average 8%p.a. an index fund generally does... the average wage remaining flat... current contribution over 40 years should give them $2.5m to retire on.

At a lower 5%p.a. return on the same, it's about $1.2m... not a bad $50Kp.a. for retirement of some 20 years.

So unless the case is that fund managers couldn't meet that Index return; or the fees too high and the return too low we all better save more just to meet the same return, hopefully.

12% savings is no chump change. And it's not 12% employers pay anyway... employers all have their budget per head. You increase the super they have to pay, it'll just come out of the wage they'll pay.
 
I read an article today, that suggested there may be a limit on credit cards, when taking out a mortgage.
That will bring some interesting results, with it. IMO
 

To underpin your and my beliefs, even the experts are getting nervous.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the...ed-alone-in-an-apartment-20190112-p50qzh.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

3
Future of $100,000 overland tourer Aussie lifestyle and the EV era
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
qldfrog
A
The future of Astraya
2 3
Replies
45
Views
8K
SirRumpole
Ultimate Acronym List (UAL)
Replies
0
Views
5K
Dividend
A
Factors affecting property prices
Replies
3
Views
11K
Space Invader101
Australia's own Ponzi scheme: the property market
Replies
4
Views
5K
Glen48
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...