Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6
Why every millennial should be a ‘rentvestor'
Topic Started: 19 Apr 2016, 08:39 AM (5,611 Views)
createdby
Default APF Avatar


Rastus2
19 Apr 2016, 06:04 PM

Posted Image

aww... how can people be so cruel ... now you made the troll baby cry :D
Trollie was also advising readers to buy in the stock market when it dipped last year for the "generous" dividends.

A month later, RIO and BHP and the big 4 banks announced an end to their progressive dividend policies.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Rufus
Member Avatar


Veritas
19 Apr 2016, 05:12 PM
How does it save the tax payer money?

If you say because it means Government doesn’t have to expand the social housing system you will be instructed to go straight to the dunces corner.
Because it means Government doesn’t have to expand the social housing system.

You knew all the time didn't you.
Take risks - if you win you will become wealthy, if you lose you will become wise
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Veritas
Default APF Avatar


Rufus
19 Apr 2016, 07:23 PM
Because it means Government doesn’t have to expand the social housing system.

You knew all the time didn't you.
Yeah, what a f***ing bang up job the private rental system is doing for people who (were the social housing system bigger) would be in social housing.

Quote:
 
A common measure of rental stress is to look at the proportion of lower income households paying more than 30% of their income on housing costs. According to this measure, in 2013–14, 50% of lower income renter households were in rental stress, as shown in Graph 3.


http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4130.0~2013-14~Main%20Features~Housing%20Costs%20and%20Affordability~5

I trust that puts the matter to bed and I wont have to correct you on this again.


Posted Image
Edited by Veritas, 19 Apr 2016, 07:30 PM.
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
 
Trollie
Member Avatar


createdby
19 Apr 2016, 05:33 PM
Yes we all know you bought Rio and BHP and Fortescue when iron ore was $200 a tonne and then begged and spruiked for the Chinese to keep the bubble going in this forum of all places when IO dropped all the way to $40.
Iron ore has never hit $200/t, the rest of your post is just as factually inaccurate.

To avoid this in future, take a few deep breaths and be less emotional.
createdby
19 Apr 2016, 06:15 PM
Trollie was also advising readers to buy in the stock market when it dipped last year for the "generous" dividends.

A month later, RIO and BHP and the big 4 banks announced an end to their progressive dividend policies.
So you don't like houses, you don't like shares.

Let me guess, it's bank interest all the way for you!
Veritas
19 Apr 2016, 07:28 PM
Yeah, what a f***ing bang up job the private rental system is doing for people who (were the social housing system bigger) would be in social housing.




http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4130.0~2013-14~Main%20Features~Housing%20Costs%20and%20Affordability~5

I trust that puts the matter to bed and I wont have to correct you on this again.


Posted Image
All you are proposing is to shift a much greater burden onto tax payers. You won't like what that means for you personally.
Edited by Trollie, 19 Apr 2016, 07:33 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Veritas
Default APF Avatar


Trollie
19 Apr 2016, 07:30 PM
All you are proposing is to shift a much greater burden onto tax payers. You won't like what that means for you personally.
Is that right?

Would you care to elaborate?

Seems like you know heaps about social housing policy. :re:
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
 
Terry
Member Avatar


Interesting stimulus from a property company promising the world to suburbanites and penned by a hustler with a high school education who looks like he'd be a hit at any trendy bar with a casual dress code.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Chris
Default APF Avatar


Rufus
19 Apr 2016, 04:57 PM
It doesn't strip billions from tax payers, it probably saves them money. I don't mind you being uninformed but castigating people for your own ignorance is a bit rich.
COSTS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE TAX PAUER ANNUALLY!!

Complete fact Peter, and contributes nothing to society or our economy, in fact does the complete opposite. When you try and be the poster boy for NG and investment in general you just come across as a vested shill, you know being a mortgage broker and all.

I'm not saying you are but it appears that way. It's like a plastic surgeon telling you that your boob job and lipo are 100% safe and will never give you any problems, I for one will only fall for that once.

Please don't embarrass yourself now by putting forward unsubstantiated dribble about how investment saves because less people on pensions, less people burden on the system blah blah blah. It is wrong and do are you.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Rufus
Member Avatar


Veritas
19 Apr 2016, 07:28 PM
Yeah, what a f***ing bang up job the private rental system is doing for people who (were the social housing system bigger) would be in social housing.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4130.0~2013-14~Main%20Features~Housing%20Costs%20and%20Affordability~5

Posted Image
It looks to me as though "your evidence" shows that the state is seriously underperforming in it's duty to provide social housing, so the state is heavily leaning on private landlords to make up the supply required.

Had private landlords not done that then the public investment in providing and maintaining public housing would be absolutely enormous.

Glad we could put that one to rest.
Chris
19 Apr 2016, 07:51 PM
COSTS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE TAX PAUER ANNUALLY!!

Complete fact Peter, and contributes nothing to society or our economy, in fact does the complete opposite. When you try and be the poster boy for NG and investment in general you just come across as a vested shill, you know being a mortgage broker and all.

I'm not saying you are but it appears that way. It's like a plastic surgeon telling you that your boob job and lipo are 100% safe and will never give you any problems, I for one will only fall for that once.

Please don't embarrass yourself now by putting forward unsubstantiated dribble about how investment saves because less people on pensions, less people burden on the system blah blah blah. It is wrong and do are you.
Are you never embarrassed by your posts Chris?
Edited by Rufus, 19 Apr 2016, 08:03 PM.
Take risks - if you win you will become wealthy, if you lose you will become wise
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Trollie
Member Avatar


Veritas
19 Apr 2016, 07:34 PM
Is that right?
Yes I'm completely right.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Chris
Default APF Avatar


Rufus
19 Apr 2016, 07:23 PM
Because it means Government doesn’t have to expand the social housing system.

You knew all the time didn't you.
If the government decided it to change CGT concessions and almost beg everyone to begin buying IP in the late 90's how different would the market be. If they didn't allow banks to regulate themselves and go on to have such poor lending standards that a f***ing Royal Comission is a necessity, how different could the market be? If that combination of tax subsidies and cheap easy credit didn't create massive speculation in what is a basic human right in what is an advanced economy. If organised crime wasn't allowed to permeate the entire building industry where they control everything, dictating enormous wages, exorbonate material costs with their 'friends' associated trades and extorting, I mean stopping work and demanding more money for workers mid build, how different would the market be?


In your little bubble you fail to see past mistakes and your generation is doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over. If all this didn't drive up the cost of building then the burden on the government in relation to social housing would be significantly less, in fact it is quite conceivable that we may not even have a social housing problem.

Rufus
19 Apr 2016, 08:01 PM
It looks to me as though "your evidence" shows that the state is seriously underperforming in it's duty to provide social housing, so the state is heavily leaning on private landlords to make up the supply required.<br /><br />Had private landlords not done that then the public investment in providing and maintaining public housing would be absolutely enormous.<br /><br />Glad we could put that one to rest.
<br />Are you never embarrassed by your posts Chris?
Nope, why should I be?

You're the one that should be embarrassed but as a sociopath I'm sure that is difficult. You understand that by playing the lesser card, by that I mean belittling me in an attempt to make me the lesser (you the greater), you come across as a twisted sociopath.

You do know this right, most people would read your posts and feel sorry for you Pete not me.
Edited by Chris, 19 Apr 2016, 08:19 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6



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