Land tax grabs, maintenance bills, increases in council rates and the list goes on.
Yes this is me and Mrs. Not sure whether we will leave or where we might go, but certainly examining our options.
Too many dumps in the World, W.A is isolated so the problems are equally small.
I know two people who've done well out of it but they were unique circumstances.
Ya reckon? After MaoGowan's totalitarian dreaming?
Well how much competition are you facing? I bet you can't keep up with work. Lol
Couldn't agree more as long as mining, oil and gas carry on few places with the opportunities and cash flow like WA.
They usually get a one way ticket from my knowledge, when they lose their jobs they go on the dole and smoke meth.
@qldfrog Mr frog I totally understand your point of view. Would it not be better to still have a tenant paying rent as to none at all?
It's an equilibrium. There are plenty of clients, but a much smaller pool of stuff I actually want to do.
www.abc.net.au
Excellent analysis by Ian Verrender on the state of the economy. Highlights the generational divide between older people with owned property (and investments) and the rest.
Yes the baby boomers are well and truly spreading their wings.
The great wealth shuffle. Why millennials are missing out
Whatever way you try to split it, the generational divide between millennials and baby boomers is growing — and it's our Australian obsession with owning property that is widening the gap, and interest rates that are keeping it that way.
Interesting observation John De. Yes not every factor is necessarily taken into account in that story. The big item Ian Verrander missed in my view (and many others) was the impact of John Howards decision tohalve the headline rate of Capital gains tax.
www.abc.net.au
Do you then agree to take inflation into account, yiu might be surprised by the results in the last few yearsInteresting observation John De. Yes not every factor is necessarily taken into account in that story. The big item Ian Verrander missed in my view (and many others) was the impact of John Howards decision tohalve the headline rate of Capital gains tax.
House prices in Australia are soaring, but not because there aren't enough homes
.......What appeared to set things off was a decision by Prime Minister John Howard in 1999 to halve the headline rate of capital gains tax. Not that the committee he asked to investigate the idea recognised the possibility at the time.
The Ralph Review recommended that half, rather than all, of each capital gain be taxed, rather than the portion above inflation as had been the case since capital gains were taxed.
The rationale was that this would "encourage a greater level of investment, particularly in innovative, high-growth companies".
A rush into property rather than high-tech companies
The review was right about the change encouraging investment, but wrong about the sort of investment.
Rather than buy shares in innovative companies, Australians bought rental properties like they never had before.
If they bid enough, they could borrow enough to negatively gear; to make sure their interest charges exceeded their income from rent, giving them annual losses they could offset against wages that would otherwise be taxed at high rates.
There was nothing new about negative gearing. It had been permitted from the beginning. What was new was the opportunity to later sell the property at a profit, knowing only half of the profit would be taxed.
Investors could offset all of their losses and be taxed only half their eventual gain.
Pretty soon, more than a third of the money lent for housing each month went to landlords. For several dizzying months during 2015 it was 45 per cent. First home buyers struggled to compete.
House prices are climbing, alright — but not for the reason you might think
House prices in Australia are soaring again, but not because there aren't enough homes, writes Peter Martin.
Interesting observation John De. Yes not every factor is necessarily taken into account in that story. The big item Ian Verrander missed in my view (and many others) was the impact of John Howards decision tohalve the headline rate of Capital gains tax.
House prices in Australia are soaring, but not because there aren't enough homes
.......What appeared to set things off was a decision by Prime Minister John Howard in 1999 to halve the headline rate of capital gains tax. Not that the committee he asked to investigate the idea recognised the possibility at the time.
The Ralph Review recommended that half, rather than all, of each capital gain be taxed, rather than the portion above inflation as had been the case since capital gains were taxed.
The rationale was that this would "encourage a greater level of investment, particularly in innovative, high-growth companies".
A rush into property rather than high-tech companies
The review was right about the change encouraging investment, but wrong about the sort of investment.
Rather than buy shares in innovative companies, Australians bought rental properties like they never had before.
If they bid enough, they could borrow enough to negatively gear; to make sure their interest charges exceeded their income from rent, giving them annual losses they could offset against wages that would otherwise be taxed at high rates.
There was nothing new about negative gearing. It had been permitted from the beginning. What was new was the opportunity to later sell the property at a profit, knowing only half of the profit would be taxed.
Investors could offset all of their losses and be taxed only half their eventual gain.
Pretty soon, more than a third of the money lent for housing each month went to landlords. For several dizzying months during 2015 it was 45 per cent. First home buyers struggled to compete.
House prices are climbing, alright — but not for the reason you might think
House prices in Australia are soaring again, but not because there aren't enough homes, writes Peter Martin.
Or just changing all capital gain to include inflation.that would be fair, allow long term investments RE, businesses, shares instead of favoring yearly swap.Back then we were told it would help increase rental stock, while at the same time help with wealth distribution to the lower classes by allowing low-income families to invest in property.
And it worked, people on low wages got into the property market, people started to build rental stock, wealth was shared. there was a period during the late 90's and early 2000's where there was more rental tock than renters, causing drastic price drops in rent. I don't recall governments and welfare agencies complaining about that for the investors.
My father was one of those new investors, he was a working-class guy working multiple jobs. Purchased his first rental when I was 10 and had the whole family working to renovate it. The next when I was 13, and I was there again to help restore it for renting. then another when I was 16, and then he built one when I was 18. He did not purchase a new car or go overseas, every spare cent went into building for his retirement.
And now we have governments and other organisations trying to make those people out to be greedy rich people, when all they did was sacrifice and work within the rules that helped build a wealthy and successful country.
However, nothing stands still forever.
Changes to the rules need to be made, many of the current property investors are building portfolios that have dozens of houses. Maybe the government could change the tax rules so that the benefit is for the first few properties, and then stops but changes to a benefit for building a apartment or retirement village
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
