Your anti psychotic medication obviously not serving its purpose!
Over 90% of NG properties are established properties, with billions wasted on it and homelessness growing every year! Not to mention the huge bubble it's created! It's Australia's biggest policy failure! Well you've mistaken people for idiots and ended up looking like one yourself
Hi Timo, What part of "houses don't make money" don't you get? How can the dole bludger ever get to build a House? And why would the rich ever build them One??? Enter N.G.. Tax effective way the wealthy can be encouraged to risk their capital to build houses for the bludgers. If you stop the rich getting a tax break the government will have to build more bridges, because that is where the bludgers will have to move to. Please work this out Timo before you hurt the very people you are trying to help. Cigarettes, sodas and hamburgers are the investments of renters, they Can't get all that good stuff if they waist their money on buying houses. Peter And what would the real rent have to be if there was no N.G.??? Peter
I understand what you are saying Herb but why do we have a progressive tax system to start with?
The real economic reason for having a progressive tax system is because it provides fiscal drag which is like an automatic anti-inflationary fiscal measure.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
I still find it interesting to ponder exactly what would happen in the extremely unlikely event it were removed.
For all the arguments that it would have no effect, the lobby groups representing investors certainly seem very unwilling to find out. They are obviously afraid of something for this issue to provoke such a response from them every time it is raised.
I do find it difficult to believe that there would be no impact at all on demand for investment property - which is now the biggest driver of housing demand in our biggest market - when everybody suddenly finds that they can no longer make such a claim against their total income.
But with our entire political class being one big vested interest, I doubt that we'll find out any time soon.
I still find it interesting to ponder exactly what would happen in the extremely unlikely event it were removed.
For all the arguments that it would have no effect, the lobby groups representing investors certainly seem very unwilling to find out. They are obviously afraid of something for this issue to provoke such a response from them every time it is raised.
I do find it difficult to believe that there would be no impact at all on demand for investment property - which is now the biggest driver of housing demand in our biggest market - when everybody suddenly finds that they can no longer make such a claim against their total income.
But with our entire political class being one big vested interest, I doubt that we'll find out any time soon.
All that would happen is the wealthy would find better investments, the poor renters would have to pay more for their housing. It is the reason the government has the incentive in place. Peter
I never said it was the sole driver, I am disputing your claim that it makes no difference at low interest rates. Without it, prices would be a lot more affordable than they are today.
All that would happen is the wealthy would find better investments, the poor renters would have to pay more for their housing. It is the reason the government has the incentive in place. Peter
Rents would not rise if ng was restricted to new builds, that's a rubbish argument... If investors wanted to take advantage of the tax break, they would be forced to do something that contributes to society (build more houses). Meaning the ratio of houses to rent seekers would increase, and land lords would have to start being competitive with their asking rent to get a Tennant in place.. Supply and demand peter.. Supply and demand
All that would happen is the wealthy would find better investments, the poor renters would have to pay more for their housing. It is the reason the government has the incentive in place. Peter
I thought they were only planning on removing it from existing build, I don't get how it would increase rents if investors stopped buying existing builds. Somebody somewhere would still own the house and I don't see why they would rather it be empty than to keep renting it out.
I thought they were only planning on removing it from existing build, I don't get how it would increase rents if investors stopped buying existing builds. Somebody somewhere would still own the house and I don't see why they would rather it be empty than to keep renting it out.
I don't think anyone is planning anything. The OP is talking about "modelling" something. We know they were modelling various options for Hockey before the budget, and we know that the whole deal got nixed. It's not gonna happen. It's just gonna get endlessly talked to death in forums, as it has been since there were forums to talk about it on.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
I don't think anyone is planning anything. The OP is talking about "modelling" something. We know they were modelling various options for Hockey before the budget, and we know that the whole deal got nixed. It's not gonna happen. It's just gonna get endlessly talked to death in forums, as it has been since there were forums to talk about it on.
The thing with NG is that it affects all classes of voters one way or another without benefiting a particular party.
You may be a working class Labour voter who bought an investment property and benefited or you may be a working class Labour voter who feels they have been priced out by NG.
It is like the daylight saving debate in WA. No party will go to the polls with a mandate to introduce or outright reject daylight saving. They would split their own vote and lose the election.
My belief is that NG will be tinkered with in the same way as FTB or fuel duty.
The CG discount could be reduced by a few percentage points here and there and nobody would really notice.
NG could be scaled back so that you could claim 75% of losses against unrelated income and no one would notice.
NG could be weighted towards new builds and away from established properties and nobody would notice.
Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be rising.
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.
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