Regardless, smugness and smart arse comments do not further your theory at all.
Don't worry, I think I know the real reason you don't wish to spend the effort doing the research... it's unlikely that any data found would support it... It can be our little secret
<tag> shadow demands data but can not deliver <tag>
Yes, that's all fine if the theory is measurable and testable - for example, a theory that a dropped ball will fall to the ground can easily be tested and proved. However a theory that someone is motivated to do something for a particular reason can never be tested without the co-operation of that person. For example, I might see you drinking water and theorise that you did this because you were thirsty, but I can never prove this because I can't read your mind, and if I asked you why you were drinking the water I have no way of knowing whether you will tell me the truth.
Similarly it is impossible to prove why a particular government supports negative gearing. Motivation can't be proved.
Surely even you can understand this?
Firstly, I believe that you probably need to ask Strindberg how he did his own data collection related to the cost savings (to the Government) that -ve gearing has given.
This gives you a start point to support one of the theories you proposed (you did throw a couple of different theories out in this topic so it was difficult to get a clear picture of what exactly you were trying to propose other than "Negative Gearing Good !").
To answer your example.. As for your example where you claim that it's impossible to know if I am telling the truth... well there are actually ways to measure hydration levels, so if you choose to not believe the subject, you could do a simple squeeze of my palm which would tell you how hydrated I am.
This is called observation.. it's requires a little bit of lateral thinking but is common for data collection.
Alternatively, you could do some data searching for evidence of your theory in many of the ABS,ATO,Gov or economic databases for any data that supports your theory...
This is not simply an attack so please stop trying to sound smug and treating me as though I do not understand your absence of data ... your theory could well hold water, it probably deserves a little more effort than "it's just a theory, stop asking for data "...
If you want it to fly, give it a chance and do some more work .. anyway, it's your theory, not mine, so you can just leave it in the conjecture basket if you want.. I really don't care.
As for your example where you claim that it's impossible to know if I am telling the truth... well there are actually ways to measure hydration levels, so if you choose to not believe the subject, you could do a simple squeeze of my palm which would tell you how hydrated I am.
That might tell me how hydrated you were, but it wouldn't tell me whether thirst was your real motivation for drinking the water at that time. Your reason for drinking the water could be because you had something caught in your throat, or maybe to sooth a sore throat, or to help swallow a tablet, or you wanted to cool down, or you wanted to drink a certain volume of water per day. Only you know the reason.
Now, you mentioned a few posts back that you know of numerous examples of how to prove someone's real motivation, and you offered to help me find them. So yes, I will repeat my response, I would certainly like to take you up on the offer to find those examples for me. Thanks.
That might tell me how hydrated you were, but it wouldn't tell me whether thirst was the real motivation for drinking the water. Your reason for drinking the water could be because you had something caught in your throat, or maybe to sooth a sore throat, or to help swallow a tablet, or you wanted to cool down, or you wanted to drink a certain volume of water per day. Only you know the reason.
Now, you mentioned a few posts back that you know of numerous examples of how to prove someone's real motivation, and you offered to help me find them. So yes, I will repeat my response, I would certainly like to take you up on the offer to find those examples for me. Thanks.
um.. I think you are picking at straws (on your own example) in the hope that it demonstrates it's impossible to define with 100% certainty that I drank because I was thirsty..
if I am dehydrated, I am, by definition in need of water... that is a basic principle.
I may indeed also have something stuck in my throat, but I was, none the less, in need of water.
If you are measuring my motivation to drink, or spend 300k on an IP, then you need to understand that my actions may have been motivated partially by a minor factor, but the larger factor (my dehydration for example) was always going to push me in that direction. The trigger of me drinking is used to flag the event which filters the dataset required to trawl through ... the background data of my situation (my dehydration) can then be used to filter out those that are not dehydrated which narrows your dataset even more.. what is left are those people who will need to drink to rehydrate.. the fact that I had other motivations to do it a little earlier than I would otherwise have been required to do is of little consequence and can be added, if you wish, as a small margin of error. I would, in a short time after being dehydrated, have elected to drink water if it was handy... this should not be a difficult fact for you to swallow (no pun intended).
You do not need to find 100% of the evidence of why I drank.. you just need to prove your arm of the reason why I drank... I was thirsty at the time which, naturally leads me to drink at some time in the near future.
Quote:
Now, you mentioned a few posts back that you know of numerous examples of how to prove someone's real motivation, and you offered to help me find them. So yes, I will repeat my response, I would certainly like to take you up on the offer to find those examples for me. Thanks.
I think I just did that for you with your own example.. do I really need to do it for numerous examples before the penny drops ?
May I ask, since you seem to be citing a few different set of theories as we go.. just what is the theory that you particularly wish to prove, and who's motivation are you talking about... the governments or the investors ?
if I am dehydrated, I am, by definition in need of water... that is a basic principle.
There are various levels of dehydration, so unless dehydration was quite severe you may have had more pressing reasons to drink. Also, you may have felt thirsty without any measurable symptoms of dehydration. Furthermore, I would require your cooperation in order to attach some form of accurate hydration measurement device. Like I said, nobody knows your motives but you, and nobody can prove your motives without your cooperation and confirmation.
Rastus2
17 Mar 2011, 11:42 PM
May I ask, since you seem to be citing a few different set of theories as we go.. just what is the theory that you particularly wish to prove, and who's motivation are you talking about... the governments or the investors ?
Oh dear. So you have spent all this time asking me to prove my theory and now you don't even know what theory you're asking about?
Maybe you should quit while you are only this far behind?
There are various levels of dehydration, so unless dehydration was quite severe you may have had more pressing reasons to drink. Also, you may have felt thirsty without any measurable symptoms of dehydration. Furthermore, I would require your cooperation in order to attach some form of hydration measurement device. Like I said, nobody knows your motives but you, and nobody can prove your motives without your cooperation and confirmation.
Oh dear. So you have all this time asking me to prove my theory and now you don't even know what theory you're asking about?
Well if you wish to measure true dehydration there are machines and other tests. My simple 10 second test could be replaced with a more sophisticated one if you really want.. you seem to miss my point and grasp at the straws instead.
As I explained, if you elect to not believe me when you ask me my motivations for drinking then that is your own choice and alternate measurements are required. There is no reason that I would lie is there? The extrapolation would be that much data from the sources I mentioned would hold data gathered already.
Quote:
Oh dear. So you have all this time asking me to prove my theory and now you don't even know what theory you're asking about?
lol .. perhaps you have forgotten how many times you have dodged and weaved your various variants of the theory in course in this thread... let me help you.
It is difficult for me to nail just what you are babbling about sometimes when you keep changing tack instead of building a case, ... You are the one using the word 'theory' and 'motivation' numerous times for different groups ... when you ask me to help you identify motivation are you talking about your motivation of investors, or your motivation of governments (both of which you posted earlier).. you really are tying yourself in knots with this and I am not able to help you untie yourself without you framing your theory in one, discrete block instead of jumping all over the place.
In case you have forgotten the jumps.. Shadow's theories in this thread to date:
1 - Initial mention of a theory "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."
2- theory that talks about investor motivations:
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.
3 - (a revised description of one of the above that cites data which is unsourced and conjecture ) My theory doesn't need to be backed up by a document. It is backed up by logic. Up to you whether you agree with it or not.
Australia and the UK both have 30% of dwellings as rental stock.
In Australia this is 5% public and 25% private
In the UK it is 18% public and 12% private
Having to provide all this public housing costs the UK a lot of money, and because it is usually concentrated in slums/ghettos it also leads to costly social problems.
I believe Australia has the much greater percentage of private rentals because Australia encourages private landlords through negative gearing, and I believe the Australian government does this because it costs them less in the long run, and leads to better quality, better integrated rental stock, with fewer social problems.
That's my theory, based on my logic. Take it or leave it. I don't have evidence and I don't need it to be backed up by a document. It's just a theory
3 - theory that now talks about government motivation
I didn't say the student was wrong (many things he says are correct). However I believe the government may have other motivations for maintaining NG that were not considered by the student. The only way to 'prove' my theory is to ask the government what their motivations are, even then you might not get an honest answer. So it remains a theory. Goodnight.
Your long 'additional point' which opens up another arm of the theory Too long to post
(You cite Strindberg's statistics which I am still waiting for him to give the sources for... there is reason for my request ).
Strindberg's Theory/Claim:I have asked him to source some of his data but he has not been on line of late to do so
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
If you wish, you can summarize your theories (the various arms and additional points you introduce as the tread goes) if you want, then we have something more nailed down to discuss.
Once again ,if you really want to, you could do a lot worse than follow their example as a framework and perhaps build something better to substantiate your own theories.
Master Rastus You win. The boomers will not need NG as they retire and that is what is happening now. NG will go as the boomers divert whatever tax savings they can into pensions and health. It is only a matter of demographic time.......
When it goes, nothing will change, apart from an initial price correction. Rents will not go up as they are set by the market, limited by wages and not set by the landlords.
Many investors have positive yields, so they will not care one bit when it goes. In fact, they will also want the govt to divert the funds saved to pensions and health....
Yes, that was based on asking people what their motivations were - i.e. interviewing the participants who cooperated in the survey. Thanks for proving my point.
Thanks also for summarising some of my posts in this thread. So, which theory have you actually been asking me to prove?
Yes, that was based on asking people what their motivations were - i.e. interviewing the participants who cooperated in the survey. Thanks for proving my point.
Thanks also for summarising some of my posts in this thread. So, which theory have you actually been asking me to prove?
Correct, that is one method of gathering data.. The internet is another, which is how I gathered this example for you. There is more data out there from the kind of websites i have already listed... Dyor.
I did not prove your point, i handed you an example of how one group went with the real path towards data gathering... You need to do your own proving all by yourself shadow.
I did not summarize your theory versions, i cut and pasted them... The summary wil need to be done by the creator of the theory himself.
Which one do i want you to prove ?? Well.. I would like you to prove all of them.. Whenever i asked for proof of the version you presented, you would change it into a slightly alternate version and this twist and turn but always dodge the task. If you wish to have 1 nicely summarized version, or 20 alternate versions, you need to do the work of each of them.. Thus my request for you to tidy up your theory a bit into just one version that is packaged to include you alternates...
Let me give you a hint... You will need to start at the basis of your theory which is founded on strindbergs work.. It is conjecture and while impressive, unsourced and unproven for quite a bit of it.
Conjecture upon conjecture based upon correletion is a bird that may not fly very well...
Let me repeat, your theory might just hold water, my doubts carry no more weight than your eagerness to see it upheld... But without a bit of work, it can not be stated as fact... Just bull myth.
There is more data out there from the kind of websites i have already listed... Dyor
Let me repeat, your theory might just hold water, my doubts carry no more weight than your eagerness to see it upheld... But without a bit of work, it can not be stated as fact... Just bull myth.
You offered to do the research for me, but when I took you up on your offer you just posted a survey that confirms my original point - i.e. the only way to determine the government's motive is to ask them (even then you may not get an honest answer).
As to your second point... my theory can't be (and wasn't) stated as fact. It can't be proved, and obviously if it could then it wouldn't be a theory any more.
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