Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Good News: Treasury pushing remodel of Negative Gearing for only new homes!; Corrupt and vested real estate interest run for cover!
Topic Started: 14 Aug 2014, 09:26 PM (33,865 Views)
Aussiehouseprices
Member Avatar


Shadow
23 Aug 2014, 08:13 PM
Can you describe a scenario where you believe people would not claim the losses?


For people who have a negative-gearing strategy, i.e. those that buy a negatively geared property and sell it before it becomes positively geared and move on to the next one. If the law was changed so that property losses could only be offset against future property gains (much like the non-commercial loss rules for businesses), then the losses would never be claimed - unless people change their investment strategy.
Quote:
 

Why would anyone have the goal of making losses?
For a tax deduction! Many people think a tax deduction is more valuable than it actually is - they think they get it all back at tax time. And/or they think capital gains will more than make up for their loss-making investment. I don't agree with the strategy - but it's a common strategy. And it works OK when prices are rising quickly. Problem is, the perceived attractiveness of negative gearing actually causes prices to rise - self fulfilling prophecy and leads to bubbles.

Quote:
 
But if they do make a loss, why should they pay tax on income they didn't receive?
Because it creates unnecessary distortions in the property market. If you think there's no difference between a deduction now and deferring until later, why do you care?

Quote:
 
There is no hole in revenue. The government was never eligible to receive tax revenue on income not generated. If there is a loss then there is no income to tax.
I disagree.

Quote:
 
You are saying property investors need to pay tax on income they never received. It doesn't make sense. How can you tax something that doesn't exist?
No, I'm saying they shouldn't be able to so freely offset property losses against other income. There should be some restrictions, like there are for businesses, to reduce the likelihood of people making investment decisions where a tax deduction is the primary consideration.
Edited by Aussiehouseprices, 23 Aug 2014, 08:55 PM.
Aussie House Prices blog
Latest post: Real Estate 101 - Lecture 1: Never use the "F" word
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Aussiehouseprices
23 Aug 2014, 08:52 PM
For people who have a negative-gearing strategy, i.e. those that buy a negatively geared property and sell it before it becomes positively geared and move on to the next one
You must think property investors are incredibly stupid, to keep buying successive properties and losing money on them all? What sort of strategy is that? What's the point? Where is the evidence that property investors are continually buying and selling loss-making properties? If an investor has a property bringing in rental income each month, why would they sell it just to buy a new property that loses money?

I know it may be comforting for you to think of investors as idiots who just got lucky, but the majority of people are perfectly capable of differentiating between something that brings in money vs something that costs money.

But in any case, if they do make a loss, why should they pay tax on income they didn't receive? This is the crux of the matter. Your position is that investors who make a loss should still pay tax on the income they didn't receive. It doesn't add up. If the income wasn't made, then it isn't there to be taxed.

Quote:
 
Many people think a tax deduction is more valuable than it actually is - they think they get it all back at tax time
Evidence please? This sounds like a standard unsubstantiated bear soundbite.

It would take exactly one tax return for people to figure out pretty quickly they don't 'get it all back'. Yet you believe property investors are so dumb that they go through dozens of tax returns not realising they're not getting it all back, and then as soon as they start making money they sell and buy another loss making property and still never figure out that they get it all back.

Property investors are not as dumb as you seem to believe.

Quote:
 
Because it creates unnecessary distortions in the property market. If you think there's no difference between a deduction now and deferring until later, why do you care?
I don't care if the government forces the losses to be quarantined. In fact I hope they do, so the bears will stop whinging about nothing.

Quote:
 
No, I'm saying they shouldn't be able to so freely offset property losses against other income. There should be some restrictions, like there are for businesses
There are already restrictions. The only additional restriction being tabled is the proposal that the losses must be quarantined, in which case they still get claimed later.

You say they shouldn't be able to offset property losses against other income. Fine, so we change the rules so that the losses are offset against future IP income. It makes no difference. The losses still get offset, only later. There is no net additional income for the government. There is no net additional tax paid by the investor. The amount of tax paid by the investor and received by the government is exactly the same. The only difference is timing, so there is no 'tax break' unless you say the tax break is simply the timing.
Edited by Shadow, 23 Aug 2014, 09:26 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Aussiehouseprices
Member Avatar


Shadow
23 Aug 2014, 09:09 PM
You must think property investors are incredibly stupid, to keep buying successive properties and losing money on them all? What sort of strategy is that? What's the point?
Not stupid. Just uninformed about investing and taxes. I've met heaps of property investors who don't know how to calculate rental yield. And I come across people all the time (from all walks of life) who don't understand a tax deduction.

Quote:
 
It would take exactly one tax return for people to figure out pretty quickly they don't 'get it all back'. Yet you believe property investors are so dumb that they go through dozens of tax returns not realising they're not getting it all back, and then as soon as they start making money they sell and buy another loss making property and still never figure out that they get it all back.
You are wrong if you think everyone reads and understands their tax returns.

Quote:
 
Where is the evidence that property investors are continually buying and selling loss-making properties? If an investor has a property bringing in rental income each month, why would they sell it just to buy a new property that loses money?

As I said, they are uninformed. They get big refunds at tax time, AND see the value of their property going up. Articles like this don't help:
"Negative gearing is a strategy that provides immediate tax benefits while also offering the promise of long-term gains in the form of capital appreciation."
http://www.propertyinvesting.com/strategies/negative-gearing/
It's a "strategy", not something to put up with while waiting for the investment to turn profitable.

Or this one:
"The reason there is positive vibe around negative gearing is that a negatively geared property can offer immediate tax benefits while also offering the prospect of capital appreciation over time. For those two reasons, negative gearing tends to be adopted as a financial strategy by property speculators or people with a heavy tax burden."
http://www.moneybuddy.com.au/personal-finance/tax-and-negative-gearing

Found the above in 30 seconds.

Quote:
 
But in any case, if they do make a loss, why should they pay tax on income they didn't receive? This is the crux of the matter. Your position is that investors who make a loss should still pay tax on the income they didn't receive. It doesn't add up. If the income wasn't made, then it isn't there to be taxed.
Who said anything about paying tax on income not received. I'm just agreeing with the idea to quarantine property losses and not allow an immediate deduction against other income. It happens plenty in the tax system - the non commercial loss rules for businesses, the inability to claim a capital losses against other income until you make a future capital gain, the inability for a trust or company to distribute a loss to an individual to offset against their other income. The reason? To plug huge holes in revenue loss that would otherwise occur. Same kind of restriction is now needed for property.

Quote:
 
I don't care if the government forces the losses to be quarantined. In fact I hope they do, so the bears will stop whinging about nothing.
OK great, we agree.

Quote:
 
There are already restrictions. The only additional restriction being tabled is the proposal that the losses must be quarantined, in which case they still get claimed later.
Apart from all those investors with a negative gearing strategy - which is the thing I'm concerned about. By the way, what restrictions are there already around negative gearing?

Quote:
 
You say they shouldn't be able to offset property losses against other income. Fine, so we change the rules so that the losses are offset against future IP income. It makes no difference. The losses still get offset, only later. There is no net additional income for the government. There is no net additional tax paid by the investor. The amount of tax paid by the investor and received by the government is exactly the same. The only difference is timing, so there is no 'tax break' unless you say the tax break is simply the timing.
No, the negative gearing "strategy" becomes much less attractive. Demand goes down, prices go down, rental returns go up, property (overall) becomes a profitable activity and the government collects money (on aggregate) each year from property profits rather than provides a tax deduction (on aggregate) for property losses.
Edited by Aussiehouseprices, 23 Aug 2014, 10:54 PM.
Aussie House Prices blog
Latest post: Real Estate 101 - Lecture 1: Never use the "F" word
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Aussiehouseprices
23 Aug 2014, 10:44 PM
As I said, they are uninformed. They get big refunds at tax time, AND see the value of their property going up. Articles like this don't help:
"Negative gearing is a strategy that provides immediate tax benefits while also offering the promise of long-term gains in the form of capital appreciation."
http://www.propertyinvesting.com/strategies/negative-gearing/
From your article...

'Negative gearing is a strategy guaranteed to lose money'
'In negative gearing the loss is real in that John will physically have to come up with the after tax shortfall of his expenses over his income'
'For every dollar you lose, you’ll only ever recoup a maximum of 48.5 per cent back as a tax saving'
'You only ever recover a maximum of 48.5% in a tax deduction, the remaining 51.5 cents in the dollar comes from your back pocket'


Quote:
 
Who said anything about paying tax on income not received. I'm just agreeing with the idea to quarantine property losses and not allow an immediate deduction against other income
But why call it a 'tax break' then? If the losses are quarantined as you suggest then they just get deducted from future income. The total amount of tax paid by the investor is unchanged, so it's not a tax break. A tax break is when you pay less tax than would otherwise be the case.

Quote:
 
what restrictions are there already around negative gearing
You need to have the property rented or available for rent at market rates. There are rules around what type of expenses can be deducted.

Quote:
 
No, the negative gearing "strategy" becomes much less attractive. Demand goes down, prices go down, rental returns go up, property (overall) becomes a profitable activity and the government collects money (on aggregate) each year from property profits rather than provides a tax deduction (on aggregate) for property losses.
I don't think there would be much impact. Investors would just deduct the losses from future IP income. The government wouldn't collect any extra revenue over the long term.
Edited by Shadow, 24 Aug 2014, 11:29 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Aussiehouseprices
Member Avatar


Shadow
24 Aug 2014, 11:28 PM
I don't think there would be much impact. Investors would just deduct the losses from future IP income. The government wouldn't collect any extra revenue over the long term.
A tax deduction now is more valuable and enticing than a possible (or even definite) tax deduction in the future. For this reason, it affects people’s behaviour.

For example, recently, the government allowed small business an immediate tax deduction of $6,500 for motor vehicles instead of having to spread that amount over several years. Why did that do that – to encourage business to buy cars. This cost the government money and now they are about to remove this incentive. Why bother with these changes if it works out exactly the same either way?

If it’s more valuable to the taxpayer, then by definition, the government loses out. And it’s for this reason that the government has put restrictions on claiming many types of losses immediately - the non-commercial loss rules for businesses, the inability to claim a capital losses against other income until you make a future capital gain and the inability for a trust or company to distribute a loss to an individual to offset against their other income.
Aussie House Prices blog
Latest post: Real Estate 101 - Lecture 1: Never use the "F" word
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


Fact?
23 Aug 2014, 04:45 PM
No, I haven't.


I don't think you do...


The developer claims it back from the ATO, they don't lose profit.

And...


the purchase price will include GST. From the ATO themselves, so yes, in new properties, the buyer pays for the GST component. And as you're talking about developers, and not vendors, you're obviously talking about either new or substantially renovated properties, so GST is liable.

So how can your assertion...


be true, if the purchase price will include GST?


This is only a small part of the equation, you've over simplified it.
This is all nonsense check it out the vendor pays the GST, whatever that end cost may be. We all know some is claimed back I have just done this process, you clearly have never done a development nor even bothered to read the whole debate.

I am not rerunning the debate for some arrogant whippersnapper who has not even read the thread. There are subtleties here that have gone right over your head.
Quote:
 
Overview: How is GST payable in a Real Estate Transaction?

GST is payable by as a general rule:-
by vendor on sale of real estate; and
by lessors (landlords) on the lease of real estate;
but not

by mortgagees (financiers) on the financing of real estate
GST is payable by vendors and lessors because they provide a "taxable supply" of real estate services.

The GST liability is not passed on to a purchaser unless the contract provides or to a tenant unless the lease provides for it to be passed on.


http://www.businesslawyer.com.au/real_estate_gst.htm
Aussiehouseprices
23 Aug 2014, 03:01 PM
Those that buy a negatively-geared property for the tax deduction, sell before it becomes positively geared, and then look for their next negatively-geared property. I imagine this is a substantial portion of the mum and dad investors who think that a tax deduction means you get it all back at tax time and that prices always go up.

Why do you think that it is Mum and Dad investors who are stupid? Mum and Dads will be on limited incomes and will know that to claim NG they are losing money. They will be much more acutely aware of the sums than a rich investor with some tax lawyer and a property manager.

It is far more likely that some rich kid who never has to budget would be so stupid.

There is so much prejudice against lower income investors it disturbs me. Right wing arrogance, IMHO.

If you look at the crisis in Ireland it was institutional investors who were buying in the belief that the boom would never end who were behind most of the silly developments and price inflation. Encouraging too much institutional investors by removing NG and pushing lower income people out of property investment, is much more likely to destabilise the market, IMHO.

Removing negative gearing will not suddenly increase the number of properties available to buy. The OO rates are sticky and based on many very predictable things.

For instance country towns have high OO rates and lots of permanent residents and Inner city suburbs have lower OO rates and less permanent residence and therefore more renters.

The demand for rented properties won't change because NG is lost , the ownership of rental properties will just move towards the dumb money more greedy institutional investors.

Mum and Dads investors are far more likely to ride out poor times and far less likely to increase rents rapidly in a low vacancy rate environment. They are also far less likely to engage in fire-sale behaviour as they know the IP will return to profit and they will not easily throw this away. Their IP means much more to them than it does to some rich kid with their portfolio of investments.

You are so caught up in this stupid idea that removing NG is a good thing for normal people, it is not.

Home buyers will be outbid by investors, if the market favours investment, whether or not it is a big investor or a low income investor. Whether he market favours investment is dependent on the rental demand. It is just naive to think that just because someone has a low income they are stupid enough not to know this.

News.com have created a nice little storm around this issue and most kids cannot see beyond the fabricated fairy tale they are spinning about cheaper homes for OO and see that they are giving up a substantial benefit which would help them get a foot in the market with an IP or plan a retirement independent of the financial markets.

Getting rid of NG is good for the big money end of town.


Edited by skamy, 25 Aug 2014, 11:25 AM.
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993
The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Poontang
Member Avatar


skamy
25 Aug 2014, 10:49 AM

Why do you think that it is Mum and Dad investors who are stupid? Mum and Dads will be on limited incomes.......
As far as Melbourne goes, I don't think they are stupid but a large portion I feel are naive.

Buying $400k house and land packages that struggle to find tenants even at $320 per week in some of Melbounres Northern and Western Suburbs. Areas typically housing the lower skilled and semi skilled and recent migrants working in industries that are still under pressures of foreign companies and our high dollar and higher relative wages.


As you point out, these mums and dads are on limited incomes... many do not have much buffer in case things go bad.
Edited by Poontang, 25 Aug 2014, 11:14 AM.
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
 
Aussiehouseprices
Member Avatar


skamy
25 Aug 2014, 10:49 AM
Why do you think that it is Mum and Dad investors who are stupid? Mum and Dads will be on limited incomes and will know that to claim NG they are losing money. They will be much more acutely aware of the sums than a rich investor with some tax lawyer and a property manager.

It is far more likely that some rich kid who never has to budget would be so stupid.

There is so much prejudice against lower income investors it disturbs me. Right wing arrogance, IMHO.
I don’t assume that people who don’t understand how the tax system works are stupid. It’s quite a complicated concept.

And I don’t assume that all mum and dad investors are on low incomes (everyone is on a limited income). A mum and dad investor means a “small-scale non-professional investor”. They could be on any income.
Edited by Aussiehouseprices, 25 Aug 2014, 01:03 PM.
Aussie House Prices blog
Latest post: Real Estate 101 - Lecture 1: Never use the "F" word
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


Poontang
25 Aug 2014, 11:14 AM
As far as Melbourne goes, I don't think they are stupid but a large portion I feel are naive.

Buying $400k house and land packages that struggle to find tenants even at $320 per week in some of Melbounres Northern and Western Suburbs. Areas typically housing the lower skilled and semi skilled and recent migrants working in industries that are still under pressures of foreign companies and our high dollar and higher relative wages.


As you point out, these mums and dads are on limited incomes... many do not have much buffer in case things go bad.
So the argument now becomes "property investment taxation should be changed so that lower income people who need NG can no longer engage in property investment"
Your reason being that these marginal investors may destabilise the market as they may have less buffer.

I would then argue that the property market is also made less stable by an increase in institutional investment who are often more detached from the market and they can get carried away with much larger scale buying chasing a return. This was witnessed in markets such as Ireland. Where large investors bought whole blocks of units that would never have been built and later collapsed the market.

Negative gearing removal takes away a method that allows a poorer person to reduce their losses in the near term rather than the long term. Removing the lower income tier of buyers will do nothing whatsoever to lower prices. Whereas if some extra tax was added to the big end of town investors that would be much more likely to defer investors and make less properties stack up.
However, you wont see Fox news spruiking that hey?
Why are people not campaigning for increased capital gains tax or means tested capital gain?

This would be far more likely to get investors withdrawing from the market and would target rich people.
Aussiehouseprices
25 Aug 2014, 11:30 AM
I don’t assume that people who don’t understand how the tax system works are stupid. It’s quite a complicated concept.

And I don’t assume that all mum and dad investors are on low incomes (everyone is on a limited income). A mum and dad investor means a “small-scale non-professional investor”. They could be on any income.
And are these people the ones you are claiming to be stupid? You did infer that Mum's and Dads were the stupid/naive investors, you did not say that you thought big business buyers of multiple properties were likely to be equally if not more stupid.

A lot of young Gen Y's bought investment properties in places like western Sydney a few years ago and they have done really well they were not stupid at all. In fact they were sensible not following the herd who were waiting on an even larger crash.

Without negative gearing young people will no longer get this opportunity to benefit from buying in a downturn and renting and waiting for capital gains. This is just another way that increases the difficulties for young people to ever get a foot in markets like Sydney.

I am sorry but I see this as a negative, as I see it as an attempt to decrease egalitarianism in property ownership and it could lead to a dangerous concentration of rentals owned by rich institutionalised investors, who can inadequately estimate risk as they are often not even dealing with their own money. They are also prone to gamble with larger sums and to take on greater risks.

Many people claim NG because they can, not because they need to, its removal just shuts out a certain low income type of investor who cannot afford to wait a few years to claim back a portion of their losses. I am sure the people most affected will be young people hoping to get a starter investor property.

A person would need to be exceptionally naive to think it will reduce prices in a hot market like Sydney. It may lower prices in Adelaide and Tasmania if an investor class is removed but never in a million years will it dent Sydney or Melbourne as these are driven by completely different forces.

Why are young people so willing to give up something that is to their own advantage on the bidding of the mass media with a stupid promise of a very very unlikely cheaper house?
This is where there really is naivety and even stupidity, these are very likely to be the same naive young people who believed charlatans like Steve Keen and that "don't buy now" eejit. Yet again they are disadvantaging themselves by falling for these News.com agendas.
Edited by skamy, 25 Aug 2014, 01:34 PM.
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993
The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Lef-tee
Default APF Avatar


Restricting negative gearing to new builds only would impact on the demand for pre-existing houses as investment properties - I don't think there's much doubt there. To what extent I don't know but I am highly skeptical that it would be insignificant.

The argument that it's removal would lead to greatly increased concentration of ownership of the country's stock of dwellings by a handful of well-off, effectively creating a class of "landlord barons" is interesting. I guess there would probably be several million rentals in Australia - are a small number of institutional investors going to swoop in and buy them all?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
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