Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Family homes could be used to kick people off the age pension
Topic Started: 5 Aug 2014, 09:20 PM (3,294 Views)
Frank Castle
Member Avatar
Business As Usual

peter fraser
6 Aug 2014, 09:40 AM
I know that I'm pointing out the obvious, but $750K could be a modest workers cottage in Sydney or Melbourne and a mansion in other cities. How do they determine the market value? Do they get a professional valuation done or use the unimproved value as per the rates notice?
Fken gubmnt's always changing the rules and shifting the goalposts.

And if anyone needed a reason to forget about having a PPOR in Sydney this would be it.


Quote:
 
goldbug
6 Aug 2014, 08:53 AM

There are plenty of landlords now fully retired with a ppor and a few houses that are counting their copper because the after tax after expenses income from 3 homes barely matches the cash and benifits received by 2 people on an oldage pension. If they get a lengthy void it's time to eat bread and dripping.
stinkbug
6 Aug 2014, 10:03 AM


Even when those 3 homes are owned outright?
For the likes of goldbug, Ignorance (and stupidity) is bliss
Edited by Frank Castle, 6 Aug 2014, 10:08 AM.
Ignore posts by The Whole Truth · View Post · End Ignoring
The forum fuckwit goes RRRAAARRRGGHHhhh - But not a fuck was given..................by anyone.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
peter fraser
6 Aug 2014, 09:40 AM
I know that I'm pointing out the obvious, but $750K could be a modest workers cottage in Sydney or Melbourne and a mansion in other cities. How do they determine the market value? Do they get a professional valuation done or use the unimproved value as per the rates notice?
Yep, valuations as part of pension eligibility. The application from the retired must include a current market valuation.
Centrelink would have would do an auto check on the valuations and flag those where Centrelink would do a valuation as well.
That would create jobs, so all good.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
busted
Unregistered

peter fraser
6 Aug 2014, 08:01 AM
if everyone spent all of their money they wouldn't be millionaires because they would take their home loans on interest only to maximise their spending power and never pay off their home. Seriously why would they bother paying off a home if they are penalised for it. The homeowners could just keep treating their homes as ATM and keep spending.

Woolworths, Coles and other retailers would make a fortune and everyone else would eventually be on the full aged pension plus rental assistance.

I think that this is one of the dumbest ideas that a politician has ever come up with, but he did. Predictably it appeals to many people who don't own a home and it offends those who do.
Not every average people is as mad as some freaky speculators to invest ever last coin into an over leveraged housing market. Every single one of us is a consumer while only few are housing speculators. This policy provides reverse-mortgage facilities to help owners who have positive asset in their properties to stand on their own feet. This policy also stopped funding speculators to grow their wealth with taxpayers money. Isn't that a Right thing? Treating homes like ATM can't not be stopped merely by welfare policy like any other Ponzi scheme as long as credit expansion approved by banking system. However, this policy could be the last chance to let sane owners to review their actual financial position and quit the market before it's too late. The steady income from reverse-mortgage would keep them away from full rate pension while speculators will find they can't do interest only payment or refinance in a falling market, in addition they can't milk taxpayers any more with depreciation properties.

Woolworths, Coles and other retailers would certainly make a fortune along with loads of jobs created, includes many for disabled and low skilled person. That means a slash in benefit budget. Have I seen many jobs created by retired wealthy owners on dole? Not many. If there has to be someone added to the queue for full pension, they are speculators who bought into a property which they can't afford without help from taxpayers money.

Stop funding people on benefit into property speculation they can't afford is not an offence. It's a favour to all Australian tax payers.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
goldbug
Default APF Avatar


stinkbug
6 Aug 2014, 10:03 AM
goldbug
6 Aug 2014, 09:53 AM

There are plenty of landlords now fully retired with a ppor and a few houses that are counting their copper because the after tax after expenses income from 3 homes barely matches the cash and benifits received by 2 people on an oldage pension. If they get a lengthy void it's time to eat bread and dripping.
Even when those 3 homes are owned outright?
Sure. What sort of homes do you think old retired people own, flashed up inner city palaces? They bought those homes long ago and sat on them, say they generate $400 a week on average, a typical rent across the nation. Then they have $1200 a week gross income split 2 ways. You alone probably make more than that. Now do the deductions, the maintenance.

The health perks on the pension are considerable but you need that card don't you. Cheaper rates, rego, power. Those little perks add up and up stinky. And lets not forget that the ppor is not on the deduction list. All upgrades and maintenance for that has to come out what's left from the 3 rentals too.

You think $400 is cheap? Look around mate, the old dumps go cheap and it's old dumps old longtime landlords own. Make up your own if you like, say $800 a home if you like. That couple are still not going to be on easy street are they. And the tax goes up as the income goes up remember that.

It's not the retirement paradise they claim stinky, its ok but it won't be champagne and new sports cars. Thing is... you have to get there first.
Shadow was hopelessly wrong about the Gold Bull Market.
What else is he wrong about?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
stinkbug
Member Avatar


goldbug
6 Aug 2014, 01:48 PM
Sure. What sort of homes do you think old retired people own, flashed up inner city palaces? They bought those homes long ago and sat on them, say they generate $400 a week on average, a typical rent across the nation. Then they have $1200 a week gross income split 2 ways. You alone probably make more than that. Now do the deductions, the maintenance.

The health perks on the pension are considerable but you need that card don't you. Cheaper rates, rego, power. Those little perks add up and up stinky. And lets not forget that the ppor is not on the deduction list. All upgrades and maintenance for that has to come out what's left from the 3 rentals too.

You think $400 is cheap? Look around mate, the old dumps go cheap and it's old dumps old longtime landlords own. Make up your own if you like, say $800 a home if you like. That couple are still not going to be on easy street are they. And the tax goes up as the income goes up remember that.

It's not the retirement paradise they claim stinky, its ok but it won't be champagne and new sports cars. Thing is... you have to get there first.
I agree with some of this, which is why I think 3 IPs would be nowehere near enough. A dozen gets closer to the (my) mark.

Still, getting 3 IPs of income (minus costs of course), plus having some super, plus a part pension still adds up to a far better retirement than most Australians will enjoy.
---------------------------------------------------------------

While it's true that those who win never quit, and those who quit never win, those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
o2sd
Default APF Avatar


peter fraser
5 Aug 2014, 11:12 PM
If you check you will find that I didn't say that. I'm not against treating cash and property on an equal footing although that would not be an easy task.
So, you concede that those with $1M in property are assessed lower than those with $1M in cash. Those with $1M in cash paid a LOT more tax over their lifetime than those with $1M in property, and yet are 'penalised' more harshly as their reward. If anything, the current system encourages people to do the wrong thing and buy a house, instead of the right thing for the economy and government tax revenues.

Everyone is a socialist when it comes to their own wealth plan.

Quote:
 
It might be a privilege but it's an automatic privilege under the current system if you are flat broke when you reach retirement age, regardless of whether you have ever worked or not. There is an income test, an asset test, but no input test.


I find the idea of someone sitting in a $1M property collecting a pension pretty offensive myself. Their children will inherit the full $1M while others pay for their retirement. Wealthy welfare.

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


Pauk's ideas are just potentially appallingly destructive to anyone who might take him seriously.

They are all about sitting 'round on your arse dreaming up ways you can take money off someone else. And reasons why your doing so is justified/'fair'.

Nothing about it that endeavours in any way to raise productivity/encourage contribution.

His recent idea for creating more jobs is indicative of the whole approach - Have more tax payer paid Centrelink type dudes policing some new rules he wants to create - Classic Socialism - Nothing productive about it; Take, take, take - Redistribute, redistribute, redistribute. Pour others' hard earned into the bottomless pit of the Socialists' insatiably needier needy supporters.

Until there's presumably nothing left to redistribute - At which point Socialists can say "Good; Now no-one has anything! So everything is 'fair' - Our job is done!" ... Onya Pauk - :)

Absolutely no focus on raising contribution or input or effort. Just more focus on taxes, taxes, taxes - redistribution, redistribution, redistribution.

Guaranteed to disincline even those who might remain even a little bit inclined to contribute, stop being inclined to doing so - Just an out and out appallingly destructive philosophy all 'round - IMO.

PS: I can see why in any "Education Revolution" Capitalists don't want to see basic financial literacy taught in school: "If you know but the dumb fucks don't then ya got the edge on them"; 'N I can see why Socialists don't push for it either: "If they're too dumb to make a go of their own finances they'll have to vote for you to steal someone else's loot off them to give 'em." They're both a mob of mongrels for mine.
Edited by herbie, 6 Aug 2014, 03:05 PM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


herbie
6 Aug 2014, 02:47 PM
Pauk's ideas are just potentially appallingly destructive to anyone who might take him seriously.

They are all about sitting 'round on your arse dreaming up ways you can take money off someone else. And reasons why your doing so is justified/'fair'.

Nothing about it that endeavours in any way to raise productivity/encourage contribution.

His recent idea for creating more jobs is indicative of the whole approach - Have more tax payer paid Centrelink type dudes policing some new rules he wants to create - Classic Socialism - Nothing productive about it; Take, take, take - Redistribute, redistribute, redistribute. Pour others' hard earned into the bottomless pit of the Socialists' insatiably needier needy supporters.

Until there's presumably nothing left to redistribute - At which point Socialists can say "Good; Now no-one has anything! So everything is 'fair' - Our job is done!" ... Onya Pauk - :)

Absolutely no focus on raising contribution or input or effort. Just more focus on taxes, taxes, taxes - redistribution, redistribution, redistribution.

Guaranteed to disincline even those who might remain even a little bit inclined to contribute, stop being inclined to doing so - Just an out and out appallingly destructive philosophy all 'round - IMO.

PS: I can see why in any "Education Revolution" Capitalists don't want to see basic financial literacy taught in school: "If you know but the dumb fucks don't then ya got the edge on them"; 'N I can see why Socialists don't push for it either: "If they're too dumb to make a go of their own finances they'll have to vote for you to steal someone else's loot off them to give 'em." They're both a mob of mongrels for mine.
Don't get too worked up herbie, this proposal is as dead in the water as any proposal can be. I just find it staggering that anyone in their right mind can take it seriously, but they do.

Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Poontang
Member Avatar


peter fraser
6 Aug 2014, 03:23 PM
Don't get too worked up herbie, this proposal is as dead in the water as any proposal can be. I just find it staggering that anyone in their right mind can take it seriously, but they do.
At some point in time government will be coming after the family home in some form to fund their budgets...
There are some people who seem angry and continuously look for conflict.
Walk away, the battle they are fighting isn't with you, it's with themselves.

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is not enough of anything to satisfy all who want it.
The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. ~ Thomas Sowell.

Who was the fool, who the wise man, who the beggar or the Emperor? Whether rich or poor, all are equal in death.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
stinkbug
Member Avatar


Poontang
6 Aug 2014, 05:51 PM
At some point in time government will be coming after the family home in some form to fund their budgets...
They will take super first...
---------------------------------------------------------------

While it's true that those who win never quit, and those who quit never win, those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy