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 (33,858 Views)
skamy
Member Avatar


Veritas
26 Aug 2014, 04:46 PM


Based on what? Your instinct?




Indeed. My late Grandfather took his first job working the residential backed securities market in a major investment bank back in the 1940s. :re:




Prepare to be shocked and amazed.




So notwithstanding the fact that WA property prices struggled to breach their 2007 highs during one of the greatest economic epochs in its history now, when the fundamentals are all turning negative, you expect prices to rise.

I will call it Skamy's law

Strong fundamentals +supply shortage = stagnation

Weakening fundamentals + increased supply= prices to the moon!


:lol


What you ignore is the effect of the GFC on confidence and on other parts of the Australian economy.

You have at least finally agreed with me the the Perth market has been through a long period of stagnation during the peak of the mining investment boom.

Logically the tail off in the investment boom cannot deflate a market that it never inflated.

Please show me these weakening fundamentals in WA, wages are growing, jobs are growing, unemployment is static and population is growing.

Some Armageddon sellers try to tell young people that slowing growth is the same thing as weakening and I think you have fallen yet again for their unscrupulous misleading techniques. They keep young people like you dreaming of cheap homes and expecting the market delivering to deliver justice on the rich. Are you going to stay naive Veritas ? or accept that you were sold a lemon by the crash spruikers.

Read this:

http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/competition_from_banking_dead_residential_tcq14G2SNkevFUgqD6qEzL



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
 
Trojan
Default APF Avatar


propertymogul
28 Aug 2014, 06:31 PM
Thanks for the honest answer. I agree most PIs would not hold for longer than 10 years, and that is the reason most are negatively geared. Now we just need Shadow to come around and see the light!

On the small businesses - no I know for a fact most small businesses don't last more than 10 years.

In terms of tax contribution however small business contribute more. Like PIs they will pay tax on their profits. However out of their costs they often pay wages of which a portion goes to the ATO in the form of PAYG. On their sales they charge the consumer GST which is passed onto the ATO. They often pay payroll tax. They also pay stamp duty when buying the business like property. There is a lot more but as an example:
A business has $1m revenue, $900k costs. On their profit they pay $30,000 income tax. Their costs include $500,000 wages on which $120,000 is paid to the government in PAYG. On their $1m revenue they collect $100,000 in GST which is passed onto the ATO. There is likely to be a small payroll tax portion as well. So they've made $100k profit but their $1m in revenue has generated at least $250,000 in tax for the government or 2.5X their profit!

Comparing a neutrally geared PI with $25,000 in rental income. After their deductions no tax to the government. The property manager's portion of PAYG for that property might be $200.

There are many more intricacies but we know what we are getting at.
In your example
The business made $100k profit provided 2.5X their profit in tax to the government.
The neutrally geared property investor made $0 profit and paid very little tax to the government.

Sounds pretty similar to me.
I put trolls and time wasters on my ignore list so if I don't respond to you, you are probably on it ....
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

propertymogul
28 Aug 2014, 06:31 PM
So lets get your position straight. You think
1. That the average time to turn a rental profit is around 7 years
2. The average PI holds for longer than 10 years.
3. The bulk of the 3 million investment properties in Australia have been held for decades and were cashflow positive a long long time ago
1. Depends on interest rates. I think it would be less than 7 years at present.

2. Not quite. I think the average holding time for investment properties would be more than ten years, but it might not be a Gaussian distribution.

3. Not quite. Of the IPs that do sell each year, I think most would have been cashflow positive at the time of sale.

Quote:
 
And you think the losses from the properties purchased from 2008 - 2014 outweigh all the gains being made by all the properties still being held (that is the only conclusion to be drawn from you claims)?
I wouldn't put such specific dates on it, but let's say I believe the losses from IPs purchased mainly in the past seven years are outweighing the profits made from IPs mainly purchased prior to that and which remain in the pool.

Quote:
 
And out of the 3 million investment properties, you therefore believe that 2,280,000 are turning a rental profit.
No. The majority are definitely making a rental loss - I think something like 65% of property investors are negatively geared.

It's only out of the ones that sell that I believe most would have been cashflow positive at the time of sale.
Edited by Shadow, 28 Aug 2014, 07:45 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
 
Veritas
Default APF Avatar


Quote:
 
What you ignore is the effect of the GFC on confidence and on other parts of the Australian economy.


I haven't and don't ignore it. Based on overwhelming evidence to the contrary however, you keep insisting that the GFC had a major impact on the Australian economy when, in fact, it barely landed a glove compared to other OECD countries.

Quote:
 
You have at least finally agreed with me the the Perth market has been through a long period of stagnation during the peak of the mining investment boom.

Logically the tail off in the investment boom cannot deflate a market that it never inflated.


Property Prices in Perth more than doubled during the course of the mining boom which began in earnest from the mid 2000s.

So it did inflate. Massively so. And that rate of inflation was sustained by a boom that is now ending.

Quote:
 
Please show me these weakening fundamentals in WA, wages are growing, jobs are growing, unemployment is static and population is growing.


Unemployment is up Skamy, not static, not steady, up. Mining investment is falling and forecast to fall further. I have seen others try to patiently explain to you the implications that this will have for jobs and growth but you don't understand so why bother explaining it again. Migration to the state is falling and people are leaving. Rental vacancies are up markedly and property prices are beginning to decline just as stock on the market is rising. A supply glut of new apartments and housing is forecast. The State's credit rating has been down graded twice in 6 months. Should I continue?

Quote:
 
Some Armageddon sellers try to tell young people that slowing growth is the same thing as weakening and I think you have fallen yet again for their unscrupulous misleading techniques. They keep young people like you dreaming of cheap homes and expecting the market delivering to deliver justice on the rich. Are you going to stay naive Veritas ? or accept that you were sold a lemon by the crash spruikers.


***GROAN***



Property acquisition as a topic was almost a national obsession. You couldn't even call it speculation as the buyers all presumed the price of property could only go up. That’s why we use the word obsession. Ordinary people were buying properties for their young children who had not even left school assuming they would not be able to afford property of their own when they left college- Klaus Regling on Ireland. Sound familiar?

The evidence of nearly 40 cycles in house prices for 17 OECD economies since 1970 shows that real house prices typically give up about 70 per cent of their rise in the subsequent fall, and that these falls occur slowly.
Morgan Kelly:On the Likely Extent of Falls in Irish House Prices, 2007
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


Lef-tee
27 Aug 2014, 07:02 AM


A few years ago I would have dismissed such an argument out of hand but having seen how very, very little Australians care about the effects of their mania for owning more houses than they can live in on coming generations, perhaps it's quite plausable. To be fair, maybe most just don't connect the dots.

But I'm not sure that the rich don't care about their tax bill. I'll ask my tax accountant when next I speak to her but I imagine that one of the reasons the rich are rich is because they are obsessed with amassing wealth and anything that assists that would be keenly embraced. There is far more tax avoidance by the wealthy than by the rest.

So what sort of money are the rich going to pay for all these rentals that can suddenly be no longer claimed against total income given that the majority of tenants can't realistically afford to pay their landlords mortgage as it stands now, that being one of the main reasons for renting. Sounds like a money-losing prospect, at first glance anyway.

You sure this would have no effect on the overal demand for investment property and hence the price?
Put it this way, if the government thinks it will badly effect the market at this moment in time - it will not be removed. You can see how much is being done to encourage a strong property sector.

NG will be removed when the market is very strong. Its removal will effect middle to low income earners who cannot afford to carry a few years loss. It will not effect the long term prospects for investment property prices as that is controlled by population and wealth growth. It will be very likely to lead to greater average yields as the market loses the Mum and Dad type investors who rarely increase rents.

The market will self correct when it overbuilds it always has and it always will.

You are also repeating a rather nasty slur on low income property investors used by the MSM when you accuse people of not connecting the dots. IMHO, a family purchasing an investment property will do more risk investigation than institutional investors, we are much more likely to get runaway construction when banks etc rush to invest in residential building. I think the dumb money is the big money, they are the ones setting up their little ponzi markets selling to each other.

An egalitarion spread of owners funding the rental property market is likely to be much more stable IMHO.

Seriously Leftee if anyone was really interested in lowering prices of rentals then they would be calling for increased CGT, but you won't see that in the MSM will you?
Removing NG does not cost rich people a penny, it simply shuts out a lower income group of property investors.
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
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

propertymogul
28 Aug 2014, 06:31 PM
Comparing a neutrally geared PI with $25,000 in rental income. After their deductions no tax to the government.
Stamp duty, land tax, tax on rental income, capital gains tax... all together it adds up to net tax revenue of $20 billion per annum from property investors.

And $4 billion deferred until later as a result of Negative Gearing.

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
 
skamy
Member Avatar


Lef-tee
27 Aug 2014, 01:55 PM
I think you've probably nailed it there Elastic.

It's always interesting to watch people saying one thing while obviously leaning strongly the other way. The property lobby obviously doesn't believe it would have no impact since they begin foaming at the mouth and decending into hysterics every time the issue of removing it is mentioned.

Mind you, I think skamy is probably correct in pointing out that much of the impact would fall on "mum and dad investors" with only a single investment property and no great income. These people appear to make up the great majority of investors. They would be left holding an asset that could suddenly no longer be used to reduce the next buyers taxable income - if that wouldn't dampen demand for investment property then I don't know what would.

But when a not insignificant percentage of the population engaging in a practice that collectively - not as individuals - increasingly robs coming generations of an important piece of social progress made over the past 150 years or so is called "egalitarian" then I think we have come up with an entirely new definition of egalitarianism :) Not that anyone actually meant to do any harm.

But it's easy for a couple of million people to blithely wave away the fact that in order for them to win, the next generation must lose - it's easy because they are vested interests with much to lose should the next generation have a win ie prices fall. This is why so many ordinary people don't appear to care about the situation, because they stand to gain from it. I wonder how that would go if the number of voters gaining from it were whittled down to a handful of rich?

So how is this small pool of rich people going to buy up and hold these huge numbers of money-losing assets that they will not be able to make claims against? Are they going to hike rents by some whopping amount and force countless numbers into poverty? Or are they going to buy a couple of million houses outright with cash?
Property does not lose longer term, people who can carry a loss for a few years can make a motza and they have done this for thousands of years.

Removal of NG simply removes from the competition the buyers who cannot afford to take a few years loss.

If too many rentals are built or offered to the market the rent will drop and the market will eventually self correct. As yields lower prices may be affected. However, sometimes capital gains and rents change out of cycle to each other.

When everyone is scared to buy rental increase and prices flounder. When everyone wants to jump in and buy rentals can drop as people build new homes.

When you see the levels to which yields have dropped in booming markets how can you believe that a tax payment method could ever on it own cool a heated market.

If people think prices are on the rise they will bid up prices regardless of yield or how they pay their taxes.
miw
27 Aug 2014, 05:10 PM


Assuming that the people who share your point of view are the sole repositories of altruism is just like assuming that everyone else is dumb or crooked. It strokes your own ego, but beyond that it is almost always wrong and will lead you into disastrous decisions.
+10

It is one of the things that irritate me so much is that the people who think it is a good thing to crash property prices try to claim the high moral ground. In reality they are wishing massive hardship on lower income people for the sake of a cheap house frenzy for the cash rich.


Lef-tee
28 Aug 2014, 01:41 PM


miw, I'm sorry if I didn't clarify that the remark was not directed at you. It was a referral to skamy's argument that removing NG will inevitabley result in Australia's investment property becoming concentrated into the hands of the well off.

Apologies for failing to make that clear.
It is also not what I said - you were the one who exaggerated the statement, Leftie. At least make the effort to be honest, or you just lose all of your precious higher ground that you think you hold.

I said that it would remove a lower income group from the market and would therefore increase the percentage of richer buyers and institutional buyers. (You can already see that in the US)

The other effect could be a failure in the provision of low cost renting if richer investors do not wish to play in this end of the market.

The MSM would have you believe that removal of negative gearing only affects rich tax bludgers who are pushing up house prices and you have fallen for this hook line and sinker.




Edited by skamy, 28 Aug 2014, 08:05 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
 
miw
Member Avatar


propertymogul
28 Aug 2014, 04:20 PM
I disagree with pretty much everything you've said here.

The person that does a 4 hour mowing job each weekend on the side but doesn't quite earn $20,000 is not doing that as a "hobby", but would fail the business tests set by the ATO.

The ATO doesn't consider buying property and renting it out to be a business (and neither do I), and hence they don't subject property to the same criteria as other businesses for claiming negative gearing losses. However property does get the same tax deductions as other businesses (e.g. MV, home office etc).



I'd say the person who does a 4-hour mowing job on the side each weekend would definitely pass the business test, because it would be profitable, unless she/he was deliberately undercharging in order to make a loss. Incidentally, if you charge a non-market rental on a property you are only allowed to deduct expenses pro-rata on the ratio between actual rent and market rent.

Quote:
 
The ATO doesn't consider buying property and renting it out to be a business (and neither do I), and hence they don't subject property to the same criteria as other businesses for claiming negative gearing losses. However property does get the same tax deductions as other businesses (e.g. MV, home office etc).


According to the ATO website, there is no deductibility for home office for rental property as a side business. You cannot claim MV expenses, other than per kilometer expenses for trips that were *solely* for the purpose of collecting the rent, inspecting the property or repairing the property.

Quote:
 
We've already demonstrated that it is the norm for property investors to sell their property prior to making an accumulated rental profit. Even at the 10 year mark most are in this position. So most are relying on the capital gain to make a profit as opposed to the rental income, it seems most in fact expect to make a loss while holding and are happy to do that because they will get a tax deduction for it. The capital gain however will be discounted by 50%. You seem to be of the opinion that most PIs invest to make money out of the rental income


I have never had a property that was still negatively geared 10 years after purchase. In fact most have been positive after 5 years. If you bought on an 80% LVR IO loan and you never put anything into the offset account, and you struck a bad decade for rent increases, you could achieve it, but it would be far from the normal case. Much has been written about the so-called discount on capital gains tax. Let's just say I would much prefer to be under the regime before the "discount" came into being. Yes the capital gains are cut in half before they are taxed, but no allowance is made for CPI and the percentage rate is one of the highest in the world. It's quite possible to pay a shitload of tax on what, in real terms, was a loss. Nice way to calculate it for shares, very tough way to calculate it for something that typically gets held for a decade or longer.

Quote:
 
i.e. you think they expect the increasing rental income to be a worthwhile part of the investment? The facts show the opposite, that most have not turned an accumulated rental profit prior to selling. While some PIs have successfully used the rental income to provide an income stream, they are in the minority.


I don't profess to know the mind of every investor. For all I know they may be as ignorant as the above statement. The facts are extremely clear. If you have held property in Brisbane for the past 15 years, your capital return has been, on average, more than 5% and less than 7.5% and for the typical rental your rent has been more than 5% and less than 6%. In other words, rental income works out at just under half the total economic return. I expect that going forward rental income is going to work out to be a higher proportion of the economic return because the start of the last 15 years was influenced by a number of one-time effects on property values. Certainly the past 7 years have seen rental returns exceed capital returns in all but 2 years. You are committing the fallacy of writing interest and other holding costs against rent only. They need to be deducted from the total economic return.

The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
--Gloria Steinem
AREPS™
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
propertymogul
Default APF Avatar


miw
28 Aug 2014, 08:50 PM
I'd say the person who does a 4-hour mowing job on the side each weekend would definitely pass the business test, because it would be profitable, unless she/he was deliberately undercharging in order to make a loss. Incidentally, if you charge a non-market rental on a property you are only allowed to deduct expenses pro-rata on the ratio between actual rent and market rent.




According to the ATO website, there is no deductibility for home office for rental property as a side business. You cannot claim MV expenses, other than per kilometer expenses for trips that were *solely* for the purpose of collecting the rent, inspecting the property or repairing the property.




I have never had a property that was still negatively geared 10 years after purchase. In fact most have been positive after 5 years. If you bought on an 80% LVR IO loan and you never put anything into the offset account, and you struck a bad decade for rent increases, you could achieve it, but it would be far from the normal case. Much has been written about the so-called discount on capital gains tax. Let's just say I would much prefer to be under the regime before the "discount" came into being. Yes the capital gains are cut in half before they are taxed, but no allowance is made for CPI and the percentage rate is one of the highest in the world. It's quite possible to pay a shitload of tax on what, in real terms, was a loss. Nice way to calculate it for shares, very tough way to calculate it for something that typically gets held for a decade or longer.




I don't profess to know the mind of every investor. For all I know they may be as ignorant as the above statement. The facts are extremely clear. If you have held property in Brisbane for the past 15 years, your capital return has been, on average, more than 5% and less than 7.5% and for the typical rental your rent has been more than 5% and less than 6%. In other words, rental income works out at just under half the total economic return. I expect that going forward rental income is going to work out to be a higher proportion of the economic return because the start of the last 15 years was influenced by a number of one-time effects on property values. Certainly the past 7 years have seen rental returns exceed capital returns in all but 2 years. You are committing the fallacy of writing interest and other holding costs against rent only. They need to be deducted from the total economic return.
Fair enough the 4 hour mowing job might turn a profit. However after deducting the cost of the mowers (lets say $3k for a ride-on and a normal mower), whipper-snipper ($600), other garden tools ($500), petrol ($200), travel to/from ($200) they may not turn a profit in year 1 (say $20 per hour, 4 hours per week, 46 weeks per year = $3,680 income), so may have to carry forward the loss for a year under the business tests. But you would still classify it as a hobby as it hasn't passed the tests. Not so with property.

You cannot claim MV expenses, other than per kilometer expenses for trips that were *solely* for the purpose of collecting the rent, inspecting the property or repairing the property.


So to summarise you can claim motor vehicle expenses. If you bought a property 100km away, and did 10 trips per year including inspections and repairs that is 2000km. If your total driving for the year was 10,000km that is 20% of your motor vehicle expenses. On a $50,000 car you would be claiming 20% of your depreciation, services, fuel, repairs etc. This could easily work out to a $3,000 - $4,000 deduction for 2,000km of driving which cost you $300 in fuel. A person driving their car to/from work to make money can't make these deductions (normally), although you have already agreed that is an anomaly in the tax system.

According to the ATO website, there is no deductibility for home office for rental property as a side business.

Can you provide a link for this, I've never heard of this exclusion? Fair enough if I'm wrong, my memory is that you can claim a portion of costs like electricity, depreciation on home office equipment like furniture, fittings for the home office. You can't however claim a portion of interest, rent or rates unless your home is your place of business. A quick look at the ATO website seems to concur https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Deductions-for-business/Home-office-expenses/

Fair enough I actually agree that if you are still making a rental loss after 10 years then you have most likely bought something with a low yield and have probably made a poor investment. However as around 65% of PIs are negatively geared, and Shadow insists that the average PI holds for more than 10 years (he may be right, I haven't seen anything conclusive either way yet) it appears that most PIs are selling while still making a rental loss. I agree that the CPI method would be fairer than the current discount. However any discount applied should be reduced by any tax benefit received through negative gearing, or alternatively negative gearing losses should be carried forward and offset against the capital gain. Otherwise you can get the position where the investor makes a net loss after selling but comes out in front due to the tax laws.

I also agree that going forward capital gains are likely to be lower in percentage terms on Aus property in general, and therefore rent will form a larger percentage of the total economic return. However I don't think I'm committing the fallacy you mentioned, in fact the opposite. What I have been getting at is the current laws which allow negative gearing and then getting a 50% discount on the capital gain results in the typical PI that sells within a few years possibly making a total economic return of $10,000 but coming out $16,000 in front due to the tax laws. Or making $100,000 total economic return but only paying 15% total tax on that return.
Shadow
28 Aug 2014, 07:22 PM
1. Depends on interest rates. I think it would be less than 7 years at present.

2. Not quite. I think the average holding time for investment properties would be more than ten years, but it might not be a Gaussian distribution.

3. Not quite. Of the IPs that do sell each year, I think most would have been cashflow positive at the time of sale.


I wouldn't put such specific dates on it, but let's say I believe the losses from IPs purchased mainly in the past seven years are outweighing the profits made from IPs mainly purchased prior to that and which remain in the pool.


No. The majority are definitely making a rental loss - I think something like 65% of property investors are negatively geared.

It's only out of the ones that sell that I believe most would have been cashflow positive at the time of sale.
I think we're getting somewhere, and I think you have made a valid point about the distribution of PIs. However I think the point you have made also means that you are wrong about your conclusion "that I believe most would have been cashflow positive at the time of sale."

I'm now actually starting to agree with you that it's entirely possible that the average investment property has been held for 10 years or more. This would be due to a large portion that have been held for 20-50 years bringing up the average. A small percentage of PIs would hold these properties and these are more likely to be the PIs that hold multiple properties.

However, due to the high rate of churn amongst PIs that are less savvy, out of the properties that sell most would still be negatively geared. This is supported by three things - that 50% of properties purchased in a given year are sold within 5 years. So out of the properties that sell in a given year approximately 50% were purchased in the last 5 years. Secondly, approx 65% of total rental properties are negatively geared. So for any given sale of an investment property, there is an approximately 65% chance that the property was negatively geared, all else being equal. Thirdly, even including all the properties that have been held for 10-50 years the total stock generates a loss. One would think that the property that's been held for 30-50 years would generate profits to cover 5-10 of the negatively geared properties, however that doesn't appear to be the case.

So the tax break given by negative gearing is not deferred as you claim. For the bulk of sales it is not recovered as the gain on sale (which is when it might be recovered) is discounted by 50% so is only approximately 50% recovered.
Trojan
28 Aug 2014, 06:55 PM
As long as you understand that most property investors does not equal most investment properties, you will realise what I said does not contradict what Shadow said.
Refer above. If 65% of total investment property stock is negatively geared, and in a given years IP sales 50% were purchased in the last 5 years, it would mean that for most investment property sales the PI has not turned a rental profit yet. I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with that, let me know. However it does contradict what Shadow said if you agree. If you disagree, please explain.
Edited by propertymogul, 29 Aug 2014, 12:37 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Trojan
Default APF Avatar


Removal of negative gearing is a tax deferral.
Sounds like the issue you have is with the 50% cgt discount if held for more than 12 months.
I put trolls and time wasters on my ignore list so if I don't respond to you, you are probably on it ....
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
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