Then there is also franking credits. You get that as well with shares and a 50% capital gains discount if you hold them for more than a year.
The average payout ratio of ASX company's since 2005 has been 67% of profits. In 2015 they paid out 78 billion, in addition to the captial gains already made.
It's pretty funny you are happy to have your money in a bank losing value, but are unhappy with the idea of owning a piece of the same bank and profiting from it.
Do you get a 50% back on the capital loss the ASX200 made in the last year?
The ASX200 didn't lose 50%. You're one confused little man.
But thanks for pointing out that another advantage to shares is that if you make a capital loss you get to offset future capitals gains tax using that loss.
So let's say you rent a house worth $1m and then buy on in a more affordable suburb for $500k.
So is the idea that in 7-8 years time your more affordable investment house has doubled to $1m, and so how much is one you are renting is now worth? $2m?... so now you can sell your investment and afford the preferred house?
If you cannot afford to buy the home you live in then you are living outside your means. What my daughter has done is buy a place a bit out of town with subdivision potential down the track. She then lives in a shared house closer to work, she pays less than 1/2 the price she is getting for rent.
There is no easy way to riches - IMHO it is not possible to rent a million dollar pad and expect to get rich rentinvesting.
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.
Federal and state governments went down this road many decades ago and it's too late to change course. If we hadn't gone this way you would now be complaining about how much of your tax dollar was being put towards social housing - not just the infrastructure but the maintenance.
In this model the government simply allows private investors to claim a normal tax deduction early and they boost the income of low income earners by paying them "rental assistance" to allow them to compete for rental property.
Public housing has effectively been privatised and they aren't going back. Compare that outcome to one where you simply kept renting and didn't purchase a rental property - how would those two outcomes compare?
Personally I think the best situation is where a buyer was still living at home and they buy an investment property with the rental covering most of the outgoings.
And the result is a housing system that is failing low income households.
And Australian governments know this and are looking to fix it.
Your argument that the private model is a surrogate for a proper social housing system thereby justifying the various tax giveaways remains specious, ignorant clap trap.
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
And the result is a housing system that is failing low income households.
And Australian governments know this and are looking to fix it.
Your argument that the private model is a surrogate for a proper social housing system thereby justifying the various tax giveaways remains specious, ignorant clap trap.
So what would you like to see done? :
Ban neg gearing or ban the private provision of rental housing?
Or both? (With banning the latter effectively making the former a non issue anyway I guess.)
And the result is a housing system that is failing low income households.
And Australian governments know this and are looking to fix it.
Your argument that the private model is a surrogate for a proper social housing system thereby justifying the various tax giveaways remains specious, ignorant clap trap.
If the government doesn't want to accept their obligations to provide social housing then they need to entice the private sector to provide whatever is needed.
Whether that be housing, food, clothing, care, respite - whatever is required.
Frankly I suggest that they don't offer sufficient incentives, because if they did many more people would provide housing, and if they had to build them then they would. Housing supply fixed.
Now how comfortable are you with this idea that the government should offer more to landlords to ensure supply was ramped up?
Probably not very comfortable at all - right. That's because it doesn't match your conditioned mind.
If the government doesn't want to accept their obligations to provide social housing then they need to entice the private sector to provide whatever is needed.
And my argument is that they are wrong and should do more.
The current "leave it to the market" approach is bust.
The rest of you post is redundant.
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
And my argument is that they are wrong and should do more.
The current "leave it to the market" approach is bust.
The rest of you post is redundant.
You say that but deep down you know quite well that a Federal Government of either colour won't spend any money on social housing, and neither will the states, so it's up to the private sector to provide it.
A similar situation exists with mentally ill patients who once were in institutions, but they were all discharged, so now some are looked after by families, but the over whelming majority went straight into the prison system which is largely privatised.
Forget about what your ideal world is telling you should be done, look at what we are faced with in reality. Nothing will cool prices in overheated housing markets like a significant supply response, and killing off negative gearing will have the opposite effect.
Can you not see how silly that would be, and it wouldn't save the federal government a cracker because NG is NOT a tax deduction. It would mean the government would have to ramp up rental subsidies and/or ramp up the incentives for the private sector to supply low cost housing.
Take risks - if you win you will become wealthy, if you lose you will become wise
You say that but deep down you know quite well that a Federal Government of either colour won't spend any money on social housing, and neither will the states, so it's up to the private sector to provide it.
Yes, private money is important and government money is important.
None of that changes the fact that the current system ( which costs the government far more in payments to landlords than it does to maintain the public housing system) is inefficient and in need of reform.
And your claim that landlord giveaways are worth it because they are housing the poor remains a total nonsense.
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
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