Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
The Negative Gearing Thread: RBA Bulletin - Negative Gearing available in many countries
Topic Started: 10 Mar 2011, 12:10 PM (32,808 Views)
kennyjaiz
Default APF Avatar


pauk
10 Mar 2011, 04:09 PM

Why did the chartered account say otherwise?
I don't know. It's best that you ask the author.

But a few logical possibilities:
1, They made a genuine mistake
2, The publisher/printer/editor made a mistake
3, They don't know the subject well
4, They relied on inaccurate publications and did not verify the content (much like what you did)
5, They are deliberately misrepresenting
I'm sure there are other possibilities.

Note the disclaimer:
Quote:
 
Disclaimer - The information contained in this whitepaper is prepared by Ewing & Company.# Though all care is taken at the time of publication,
the information does not constitute advice. Please use this whitepaper as general information only, as it may not take into account your individual
circumstance. Ewing & Company makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, timeliness, completeness or material in this whitepaper.
No liability is accepted for any loss as a result of reliance on this information.


Edited by kennyjaiz, 10 Mar 2011, 06:14 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

kennyjaiz
10 Mar 2011, 04:32 PM
I don't know. It's best that you ask the author.

But a few logical possibilities:
1, They made a genuine mistake
2, The publisher/printer/editor made a mistake
3, They don't know the subject well
4, They relied on inaccurate publications and did not verify of the content (much like what you did)
5, They are deliberately misrepresenting
I'm sure there are other possibilities.

Note the disclaimer:


Ok, I will accept that and stand corrected. Sorry.

So it seems the three countries all do not allow interest from the PPOR to be deductible.

Rent and interest I say.....
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Rastus2
Member Avatar


Strindberg
10 Mar 2011, 12:10 PM
There's a common misconception amongst the crash community that negative gearing is only available in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Such a statement even appears in the emotively non-conforming wiki article on negative gearing written by some Aussie loser who lost his shirt by selling to rent many years ago here:




He's obviously unaware of a paper which appeared in the RBA Bulletin of December 2001 which included this table showing a list of 10 countries, all but one of which made negative gearing available.

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2001/dec/pdf/bu-1201-1.pdf


I managed to miss this thread and started talking about the topic elsewhere... thanks to shadow for pointing me here.

Some good data, and even a 2006 abs document which beats the 2001 that I was initially shown for recency.


I am happy to be corrected (if I am actually wrong), but this is a couple of interesting initial observations I make on the document's comments.



Reading the document I notice some things of interest.
Document

Quote:
it is also misleading to claim, as the real estate industry did at the time, that the previous Government's decision to remove the tax benefits of negative gearing for new residential property investments was the primary reason for a collapse in property markets in the mid 1980s. The main reasons were increases in interest rates and the greater attractiveness of shares as an investment vehicle. And, it must be noted, the 'collapse' was confined largely to Sydney
Endquote:

So abolishing -ve gearing DID NOT cause property market collapse in the 80's...



Quote:
Statistics do not support the argument that negative gearing leads to an increase in the number of dwellings, as there is no firm correlation between the two variables.[61] There is also no observable relationship between negative gearing and construction activity or rental property loans. Curiously, the inverse relationship suggested by the statistics between negative gearing and the number of rental property investors supports a contrary conclusion.[62] This may give weight to the hypothesis that as negative gearing is capitalised into rental housing prices, the return on the capital invested is diminished
Endquote


So -ve gearing DOES NOT help with housing stock....



Wow..


Still reading, but this is a rather interesting document indeed.

-------------

edit:
OMG... did you guys not see the following ??

This is Gold !!

Our -ve gearing is nothing like many of those that have been cited in the OP table.
Our restrictions of how much can be claimed are nothing like the other countries... take a good look at the fine print guys.


Many of these counries have -ve gearing, but it is Restricted... that is a vast difference from "Yes" guys.. it's not like you can be on 300k income and -ve gear the entire amount in all those countries like you can in Australia...

Comments ?




TABLE 4: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON – NEGATIVE GEARING, INVESTMENT HOUSING[130]CountryIs negative gearing allowed?
Australia Yes
Japan Yes
New Zealand Yes
United States Restricted
United Kingdom No
Canada Restricted
Netherlands No
Sweden Restricted
Germany Restricted
France Restricted




A comparison of international quarantining measures

Negative gearing is not permitted in the U.K. and the Netherlands. Interest deductions are restricted in the U.S., Sweden, Germany, France and Canada. There is not a high degree of uniformity or overlap of approach to the quarantining of interest deductions overseas. The overseas measures are compared below. In general, while a fairly broad approach is applied in the U.S. (with passive investment rules) and a somewhat narrower approach applies in the U.K. (where investment income is quarantined under a specific schedule), in most countries rental income is given quite specific tax treatment that differs from other jurisdictions.

Little comment needs to be made in relation to Japan[131] and New Zealand,[132] which like Australia allow negative gearing on investment housing. However, it may be noted that previously in New Zealand the Commissioner for Inland Revenue denied negative gearing on rental properties by administratively quarantining the interest deduction to the amount of net rental income.[133] This administrative quarantine no longer applies.

The U.S. has an extensive system of limitations on deductibility, including ‘passive activity loss’ rules.[134] While interest is generally deductible[135] there are notable limitations.[136]

Rental income is treated as passive income. Unless the individual actively participates in the rental activity, losses from rental property may be limited. Individuals who actively participate in the rental activity may be able to deduct up to $US25,000 of loss against other income. No additional loss is available for individuals whose modified adjusted gross income exceeds $US150,000.[137]

Interest is only deductible on rental properties to the extent it does not exceed the taxpayer’s net investment income,[138] however the excess may be carried forward up to 20 years and offset against future net investment income. Alternatively it can be offset against capital gains realised on the sale of U.S. real estate.[139]

The U.K. adopts a schedular system to quarantine deductions for investments. Losses from one activity source can only be offset against future income from the same source. Rental property losses are quarantined to income from real property under Schedule A.[140]

Whereas each Schedule and Case has its own detailed expense rules, generally expenditure may be deducted if it is incurred wholly and exclusively in gaining income that is prima facie liable to income tax. Losses and outgoings of a capital, private or domestic nature are expressly excluded from deductibility. Each Schedule and Case has its own loss rules. Generally there is no facility to set off a loss under one Schedule against income from another, with a notable exception for losses incurred in a trade, profession or vocation (assessable under Schedule D, Cases I and II). Otherwise, except for losses from employment (for which there is no provision), income losses can generally be carried forward indefinitely but can only be offset against future income from the same source.[141]

In Canada interest is not generally deductible as it is considered a capital expense for income tax purposes.[142] Interest can be deducted in limited instances where income is gained from a business or property. [143]

The prospect of a capital gain alone will not be sufficient to make interest expenditure deductible, however if there is a reasonable possibility that the investment will eventually generate ordinary income in excess of the interest expense, a deduction for the interest will normally be allowed. Specific restrictions apply to certain real estate investments. For example, interest incurred during construction of a building is capitalised and added to the cost of the building, and taken into account when the building begins to generate an income stream or when it is sold, not when the expense is incurred.[144]

There are also rules designed to prevent passive investors from sheltering income from losses. [145]

Under case law in Canada, a rental property is not normally considered a business in the hands of an individual unless extended services, substantially beyond the mere provision of space, are provided. Where the rent constitutes business profit, net income is computed by including the right to deduct interest and depreciation. However, rental income will usually be defined as ‘specified investment business income’ rather than active business income.[146]

In the Netherlands, there are no general restrictions on using losses from one income category to offset against income from any other category.[147] However, for interest to be deductible in computing net rental income, the real estate must be part of a business operation for a private individual.[148] Normally this requirement will not be satisfied for rental properties.

In Sweden a credit is allowed for losses in respect of income from capital at a rate of 30% for losses up to $15,000 which can be offset against income from other categories. For losses in excess of $15,000 the credit rate is 21% and is restricted to current year losses where the gain on the investment is deferred.[149]

In Germany rental income is one of seven income categories.[150] Losses can be carried forward against future income or offset against previous income, but a limit applies to the amount of losses that can be carried back.[151] Losses in particular income categories can generally be applied against income in other categories.[152]

In France there are separate categories of income. Restrictions apply to certain categories of losses. For real estate losses, the first €10,700 can be set off against other income, but to the extent it arises from interest outgoings, it must be amortised over a 10 year period against future rental income. The excess losses over €10,700 not due to interest paid may only be carried forward against future rental income for a maximum period of 5 years.[153]

Rental income in France is not subject to withholding tax and is assessable with other income as declared in the annual tax return, although it must be returned in a special schedule attached to the tax return. A restrictive list of expenses can be deducted against rental income, which includes interest expenses related to acquisition costs and finance expenses.[154]



Edited by Rastus2, 16 Mar 2011, 09:17 PM.
Shadow - Defrauded his Bank ? 2015 I have 9 different loans and my bank had no idea which ones were personal and which were investment. They had half of them classed incorrectly. When this change came in they asked me to tell them if any personal loans were incorrectly classed as investment, which I did, and they switched them to personal for the lower rate. They also had a couple of investment loans incorrectly classed as personal. They didn't ask me about those. So they stay on the lower rate too. Worked out pretty well. :)
Shadow - 2008 Sydney Median House Price 1.25M by 2014-2015

Shadow : I think this boom has already begun in several cities. My prediction :
Peak of boom: 2014-2015. Sydney Median Price: $1,250,000 Bottom of bust: 2017-2018. Sydney Median Price: $1,100,000

Shadow's Original 2010 House Boom and Crash prediction http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/shady-orig-2010-chart.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Shadow's attempt to edit his 2010 chart in 2015 and replace it with one that does not show a crash in 2013 http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-06%20at%207.12.52%20pm_1.png.html
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Rastus2
Member Avatar


Strindberg
10 Mar 2011, 12:10 PM
There's a common misconception amongst the crash community that negative gearing is only available in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Such a statement even appears in the emotively non-conforming wiki article on negative gearing written by some Aussie loser who lost his shirt by selling to rent many years ago here:




He's obviously unaware of a paper which appeared in the RBA Bulletin of December 2001 which included this table showing a list of 10 countries, all but one of which made negative gearing available.

Posted Image

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2001/dec/pdf/bu-1201-1.pdf


Conclusion of the document that Shadow was good enough to point me to:
Document


CONCLUSIONS

Both critics and supporters of negative gearing have based their arguments primarily on two critical assumptions. One is that negative gearing has increased house prices. The other is that negative gearing has increased housing stock. Both assumptions are misguided.

Ultimately there is no compelling policy reason why Australia should continue to retain the tax shelter. Negative gearing results in a significant loss in government revenue, measured in billions of dollars. In return it has provided few indisputable benefits. It appears that negative gearing has increased income inequality, and statistics also support the conclusion that it has had a major effect on housing finance, with a disproportionately high level of housing finance invested in rental properties. Its effect on interest rates is debatable and further research is needed.
Shadow - Defrauded his Bank ? 2015 I have 9 different loans and my bank had no idea which ones were personal and which were investment. They had half of them classed incorrectly. When this change came in they asked me to tell them if any personal loans were incorrectly classed as investment, which I did, and they switched them to personal for the lower rate. They also had a couple of investment loans incorrectly classed as personal. They didn't ask me about those. So they stay on the lower rate too. Worked out pretty well. :)
Shadow - 2008 Sydney Median House Price 1.25M by 2014-2015

Shadow : I think this boom has already begun in several cities. My prediction :
Peak of boom: 2014-2015. Sydney Median Price: $1,250,000 Bottom of bust: 2017-2018. Sydney Median Price: $1,100,000

Shadow's Original 2010 House Boom and Crash prediction http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/shady-orig-2010-chart.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Shadow's attempt to edit his 2010 chart in 2015 and replace it with one that does not show a crash in 2013 http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-06%20at%207.12.52%20pm_1.png.html
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Rastus2
16 Mar 2011, 09:32 PM
Ultimately there is no compelling policy reason why Australia should continue to retain the tax shelter. Negative gearing results in a significant loss in government revenue, measured in billions of dollars. In return it has provided few indisputable benefits. It appears that negative gearing has increased income inequality, and statistics also support the conclusion that it has had a major effect on housing finance, with a disproportionately high level of housing finance invested in rental properties. Its effect on interest rates is debatable and further research is needed.
The main benefit of negative gearing is to the government. It increases the pool of private property investors by making it easier for investors to afford the holding costs, which increases the pool of rental property available, which in turn keeps rents lower than they would otherwise be. Low cost housing - i.e. cheap rental accommodation is necessary for a large section of society. If private property investors did not provide this rental accommodation then the government would be forced to provide it via public housing, which would ultimately cost the government a lot more than negative gearing costs them. I believe public housing costs the UK government a small fortune, and is generally of a much lower standard (ghettos, slums etc) than the private rental accommodation that is prevalent in Australia. Strindberg can probably explain it better - I think he has some facts and figures on this to hand, costs etc.
Edited by Shadow, 16 Mar 2011, 09:45 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
 
Rastus2
Member Avatar


Shadow
16 Mar 2011, 09:40 PM
The main benefit of negative gearing is to the government. It increases the pool of private property investors by making it easier for investors to afford the holding costs, which increases the pool of rental property available, which in turn keeps rents lower than they would otherwise be. Low cost housing - i.e. cheap rental accommodation is necessary for a large section of society. If private property investors did not provide this rental accommodation then the government would be forced to provide it via public housing, which would ultimately cost the government a lot more than negative gearing costs them. I believe public housing costs the UK government a small fortune, and is generally of a lower standard that private rental accommodation which is prevalent in Australia. Strindberg can probably explain it better - I think he has some facts and figures on this to hand, costs etc.


I did not see any strong evidence of that in the document but I was speed reading it.. can you highlight it for me please ?

I did come across

"The economic data suggests but does not compel the conclusion that the tax shelter of negative gearing leads to a substitution of investment from productive capital into rental properties."

that seems to say the opposite of what you are saying yes ?
Edited by Rastus2, 16 Mar 2011, 09:47 PM.
Shadow - Defrauded his Bank ? 2015 I have 9 different loans and my bank had no idea which ones were personal and which were investment. They had half of them classed incorrectly. When this change came in they asked me to tell them if any personal loans were incorrectly classed as investment, which I did, and they switched them to personal for the lower rate. They also had a couple of investment loans incorrectly classed as personal. They didn't ask me about those. So they stay on the lower rate too. Worked out pretty well. :)
Shadow - 2008 Sydney Median House Price 1.25M by 2014-2015

Shadow : I think this boom has already begun in several cities. My prediction :
Peak of boom: 2014-2015. Sydney Median Price: $1,250,000 Bottom of bust: 2017-2018. Sydney Median Price: $1,100,000

Shadow's Original 2010 House Boom and Crash prediction http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/shady-orig-2010-chart.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Shadow's attempt to edit his 2010 chart in 2015 and replace it with one that does not show a crash in 2013 http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-06%20at%207.12.52%20pm_1.png.html
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Rastus2
16 Mar 2011, 09:44 PM


I did not see any strong evidence of that in the document but I was speed reading it.. can you highlight it for me please ?
I'll leave it to Strindberg - he can explain it better than me.
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
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Actually, here you go...

http://australianpropertyforum.com/topic/8153259/2/

Strindberg
 
The cost of negative gearing is pitifully tiny in the context of social housing.

The claimed net rental income for 2007-8 was minus $8.6b (see here ). The maximum tax cost of those claims would be about $3b at 30% to 45% tax rates. Some of those negative amounts would not even lead to tax costs where the claimant wasn't paying that much tax. So the cost of NG is about $3b a year. $3b will buy about 10,000 social homes at the most, representing about 0.1% of housing stock.
In Australia about 5% of stock is public rented and about 25% of stock is private rented.
In the UK a massive 18% of stock is public rented and only about 12% is private rented. On top of the huge cost of public rented stock (including all the massive loss making housing association stuff) which is all rented out at a huge loss, the UK is now paying 20 billion pounds a year just for housing benefit to the poor and unemployed.
The $3b spent on NG in Australia is money well spent.
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
 
Rastus2
Member Avatar


Shadow
16 Mar 2011, 09:46 PM
I'll leave it to Strindberg - he can explain it better than me.


I understand the point you are making, but do not agree with it and am yet to see any evidence in what seems like a balanced investigation from the document you linked for me.

Are you saying the document is wrong when it says the following ?

Quote:
The economic data suggests but does not compel the conclusion that the tax shelter of negative gearing leads to a substitution of investment from productive capital into rental properties.

Endquote:

(Although this is not directly addressing the topic you raised)..

Or perhaps I should have included more of the conclusions..


Quote:
In relation to housing stock, although statistics indicate that negative gearing has led to an increase in real estate investment, they contradict the argument that negative gearing has led to an increase in the number of dwellings.

Arguments based on these false assumptions are flawed. There is no empirical foundation for arguing in support of negative gearing that it rewards home ownership or that it results in lower rents or increased activity in the construction industry.


Endquote:
Edited by Rastus2, 16 Mar 2011, 09:50 PM.
Shadow - Defrauded his Bank ? 2015 I have 9 different loans and my bank had no idea which ones were personal and which were investment. They had half of them classed incorrectly. When this change came in they asked me to tell them if any personal loans were incorrectly classed as investment, which I did, and they switched them to personal for the lower rate. They also had a couple of investment loans incorrectly classed as personal. They didn't ask me about those. So they stay on the lower rate too. Worked out pretty well. :)
Shadow - 2008 Sydney Median House Price 1.25M by 2014-2015

Shadow : I think this boom has already begun in several cities. My prediction :
Peak of boom: 2014-2015. Sydney Median Price: $1,250,000 Bottom of bust: 2017-2018. Sydney Median Price: $1,100,000

Shadow's Original 2010 House Boom and Crash prediction http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/shady-orig-2010-chart.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Shadow's attempt to edit his 2010 chart in 2015 and replace it with one that does not show a crash in 2013 http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-06%20at%207.12.52%20pm_1.png.html
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Rastus2
16 Mar 2011, 09:49 PM
Are you saying the document is wrong when it says the following ?

Quote:
In relation to housing stock, although statistics indicate that negative gearing has led to an increase in real estate investment, they contradict the argument that negative gearing has led to an increase in the number of dwellings.
I don't think negative gearing in its current form leads to more dwellings overall.

I do think it encourages rental dwellings to be privately owned rather than government owned (i.e. public housing).

So, same amount of rentals overall, but owned by landlords rather than the government. If the government removed NG for any substantial length of time, then I believe landlords would be less inclined to buy investment property, and the government would eventually need to step in to provide public housing.

You might respond to say that if NG was removed then house prices would fall and people wouldn't need to rent. I don't agree with that. Yes, there would be downward pressure on house prices until prices reached a new equilibrium, but there will always be a large section of the population who need to rent regardless of house prices (look at any other country... the countries without NG or with lower house prices still have plenty of renters). Those people, the unemployed, the poor, the disadvantaged, disabled, pensioners, people who squander their money on booze and gambling... all those people will always exist in any society and they need to be housed. In the UK they are in public housing. The Australian government would be forced to provide much more public housing for these people if NG was removed.
Edited by Shadow, 16 Mar 2011, 10:03 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
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest 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