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.
Lol.. Look back...
You have to do your own legwork.. As i pointed out on other threads, we are not your employees... DYOR.
I offered to help you by showing you that data exists that can help you deliver your own dataset.. I have done that And more... Even showed you a nice study done that used some alternative methods of surveys.. Somthing you felt could not be trusted.. .
I'm afraid this is your orfan theory, not mine...
all this effort to avoid doing legwork... Funny really.
I am also very keen to hear from Strindberg on the numbers he cited on how cheap -ve gearing is for the Government and what great value it is... however time will tell on that.
Just seen this. Think again. You are expecting me to spend time and effort serving your wants? My figures are all accurate and verifiable but I don't give a fuck whether you believe them or you don't. In fact I'd prefer it if you stuck to your preconceived erroneous beliefs – that way you'll end up in shit where you deserve to be. I can't think of a bigger hypocrite on these forums than yourself. Having made your money out of past property speculation in boom years, including taking all the benefits of negative gearing, you now come all holier than thou and join the band wishing to deny it to anyone following in your speculating footsteps. I haven't forgotten all your duplicitous actions when you were a mod on GHPC either. You'll get fuck-all from me other than messages like this one. Nice to see Shadow shafting you and leading you to changing your story every time he reveals your cock-ups. Don't you ever get sick of being exposed and having to apologise for your false or illogical statements?
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.
I did not offer to do your research for you.. stop lying please. I have posted an example, and cited a number of sources (ATO, ABS, and gov. websites as well as the WWW)... the world is your oyster, stop asking me to spoon feed you.
As for your theory... my point is that if you strongly believe it to be true, it's up to you to prove it... if not, then yes, since you can not provide any data or hard evidence for your theory so it it remains a bull myth.
Glad we agree.
As for which theory I want you to prove.. are you blind ? I answered that a number of times... any and all of the versions of theories you kept putting up is that I would like... lol
btw.. i notice Strindberg has been kind enough to respond to my pleasant requests for more data with a frothy mouthed abusive response... nice to see you bulls are so keen to support your claims of love of the truth with an accompanying demand that you should not have to provide substantiated data. :rolleyes:
Just seen this. Think again. You are expecting me to spend time and effort serving your wants? My figures are all accurate and verifiable but I don't give a fuck whether you believe them or you don't. In fact I'd prefer it if you stuck to your preconceived erroneous beliefs – that way you'll end up in shit where you deserve to be. I can't think of a bigger hypocrite on these forums than yourself. Having made your money out of past property speculation in boom years, including taking all the benefits of negative gearing, you now come all holier than thou and join the band wishing to deny it to anyone following in your speculating footsteps. I haven't forgotten all your duplicitous actions when you were a mod on GHPC either. You'll get fuck-all from me other than messages like this one. Nice to see Shadow shafting you and leading you to changing your story every time he reveals your cock-ups. Don't you ever get sick of being exposed and having to apologise for your false or illogical statements?
Sad to see your response to my pleasant requests for proof of your claims is responded to with such a vile spewing of froth... it does little to substantiate your bull claims.
Now Take yourself back to your OP... it is a 1/2 truth. -ve Gearing as offered in Australia is not the same as -ve gearing in all the other countries on that chart.. if you did not know it, you do now.. you are welcome. If you did know it, you are a lier by offering a 1/2 truth as fact when you knew there was far more to the picture.
As for your cited claim on how -ve gearing is better for government than private rentals option which I asked you to provide evidence.. I have already done some fact checking on the one link you gave to the ATO website.. it was wrong, which I found funny ... all the other 'facts' you just pulled out of the air and they are unsourced for us to fact check. Many of them were pure speculation at very best, the rest a mix of facts you pulled from memory or fantasy.
Whenever any other poster does this (bear) you jump on them like a ton of bricks with a post full of insults demanding they stop lying.
Strindberg, you and shadow are a great pair to ask others for data and evidence when you elect to make grand claims yourselves without wanting to prove them.
Sadly, both of you have demonstrated the ability to post excellent topics and evidence when motivated.. but you also post some complete rubbish, or bull myths with little or no evidence and get all upset when you are challenged or asked for links... oh well..
As shadow pointed out, there is no way you could understand how I ended up with IP's... you are not a mind reader and despite you delusions of grandeur and certainty, you are 100% wrong in your assumptions so perhaps you could give up trying to get a rise out of me.
I never get tired of being corrected... I try to learn from the process and am humble enough to accept when I am wrong.... yourself and shadow can, in all honesty, learn from my example. We are all human, it's the ones that refuse to accept they make mistakes that are deluded. In the same manner, I take some pleasure in exposing the people who jump on my errors for their two faced actions... stings when your caught diong the same thing doesn't it ? Stings doubly so for someone who is unable to be honest about their mistakes because they do not feel the person pointing them out deserves to have noticed them... :rolleyes:
So to summarize:
Topic of this thread is, at best, 1/2 correct.. however -ve gearing in other countries is not as generous as that in Australia... some of those countries very much so,
Topic of your claims about -ve gearing being better for the gov. is just bull myth with the response for evidence being a diatribe of abuse. At best, it is conjecture with unsubstantiated claims. Basically bull myth.
Topic of Shadows theory (ies?) are that they are conjecture upon your conjecture and, by shadow's own words, not able to be proved... so it's bull myth again.
Well that was worth all the effort I think... thanks again for your valuable input.
You said... "There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?"
When I accepted your offer you just posted a survey that confirms my position - i.e. the only way to determine the government's motive is to ask them.
And you still haven't clarified which theory you have been asking me to prove? Do you even know?
Yes..
and I did that for you.. none the less let me teach the man to fish rather than go fishing for him every post. Shadows handy guide on how to start DYOR on the internet thingy.
Open up your laptop and hit the power button.
Go to : www.google.com (or www.google.com.au if you like) in IE, Opera, Chrome or Firefox (you chose, but I can choose for you if you want).
Now type in some words that are used in your theory... don't forget to include ATO, .GOV.AU, and ABS as well..
it works a treat.
I thought you were smart enough to do that yourself.. perhaps I was mistaken... I hope this little guide helps.
Now Take yourself back to your OP... it is a 1/2 truth. -ve Gearing as offered in Australia is not the same as -ve gearing in all the other countries on that chart.. if you did not know it, you do now.. you are welcome. If you did know it, you are a lier by offering a 1/2 truth as fact when you knew there was far more to the picture.
My OP is not a half truth. My OP statement is “Negative Gearing is available in MANY countries”. That is true and endorsed by the RBA. I cited two RBA statements confirming that truth. Keenyjaiz provided further authoritative proof. Are you calling Lucy Ellis a “lier” too? It was her document I cited. That mis-spelling of lier looks to reveal the identity of one of your socks “lierlier”.
Quote:
As for your cited claim on how -ve gearing is better for government than private rentals option which I asked you to provide evidence.. I have already done some fact checking on the one link you gave to the ATO website.. it was wrong, which I found funny ... all the other 'facts' you just pulled out of the air and they are unsourced for us to fact check. Many of them were pure speculation at very best, the rest a mix of facts you pulled from memory or fantasy.
This made up complaint of yours refers to this contribution I made last year which Shadow kindly posted:
Quote:
Strindberg - 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.
You say you checked the ATO link and say I pulled the stuff from the air. You should know better than to think I make up shit. So, to show you to be the devious little lying tosser you are I'll go through it point by point. You say you checked the link and found I was wrong. I stated that the claimed net rental income for 2007-8 was minus $8.6b. The ATO link, http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/00225078.htm&page=37&H37, states:
Quote:
individuals claimed net rental income of -$8.6 billion
Precisely what I wrote. Tell me, what is the difference between my statement and that of the ATO in the link? Fuck-all. You made up shit saying I was wrong.
The next issue is the tax cost of negative gearing based on net losses claimed of $8.6b. I suggested $3b based on expected tax rates. The lead bear (SIM) on Keen's TalkFinance suggests that the figure is more like $2.3b (http://www.talkfinance.net/f32/starving-market-land-article-8976/index4.html#post21234). That fully supports and strengthens the case I was making re the low cost of NG.
Private landlord 23.9% State/territory housing authority 4.5% That fully endorses my statement.
The next issue in my quote was the 18% public and 12% private renting in the UK. I can't locate, without effort, the precise source of that at the moment but here's a University of York document (http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ukhr/ukhr0405/tables&figures/04%20017abcd.pdf) which puts the percentage of public renting at 19% and private at 10.2% for England. The public percentage is much higher in Scotland. So, my statement was sufficiently correct, understated in fact, in the context of my point.
I was right in all my statements. You made up shit saying I was wrong and that I pulled the figures out of the air. Now fuck off.
PS - don't now try to pretend to your new bear fan club that you didn't make your money by speculating on property and getting the benefit of negative gearing. You admitted it all on GHPC.
My OP is not a half truth. My OP statement is “Negative Gearing is available in MANY countries”. That is true and endorsed by the RBA. I cited two RBA statements confirming that truth. Keenyjaiz provided further authoritative proof. Are you calling Lucy Ellis a “lier” too? It was her document I cited. That mis-spelling of lier looks to reveal the identity of one of your socks “lierlier”.
This made up complaint of yours refers to this contribution I made last year which Shadow kindly posted:
You say you checked the ATO link and say I pulled the stuff from the air. You should know better than to think I make up shit. So, to show you to be the devious little lying tosser you are I'll go through it point by point. You say you checked the link and found I was wrong. I stated that the claimed net rental income for 2007-8 was minus $8.6b. The ATO link, http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/00225078.htm&page=37&H37, states:
Precisely what I wrote. Tell me, what is the difference between my statement and that of the ATO in the link? Fuck-all. You made up shit saying I was wrong.
The next issue is the tax cost of negative gearing based on net losses claimed of $8.6b. I suggested $3b based on expected tax rates. The lead bear (SIM) on Keen's TalkFinance suggests that the figure is more like $2.3b (http://www.talkfinance.net/f32/starving-market-land-article-8976/index4.html#post21234). That fully supports and strengthens the case I was making re the low cost of NG.
Private landlord 23.9% State/territory housing authority 4.5% That fully endorses my statement.
The next issue in my quote was the 18% public and 12% private renting in the UK. I can't locate, without effort, the precise source of that at the moment but here's a University of York document (http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ukhr/ukhr0405/tables&figures/04%20017abcd.pdf) which puts the percentage of public renting at 19% and private at 10.2% for England. The public percentage is much higher in Scotland. So, my statement was sufficiently correct, understated in fact, in the context of my point.
I was right in all my statements. You made up shit saying I was wrong and that I pulled the figures out of the air. Now fuck off.
PS - don't now try to pretend to your new bear fan club that you didn't make your money by speculating on property and getting the benefit of negative gearing. You admitted it all on GHPC.
Quote:
My OP is not a half truth. My OP statement is “Negative Gearing is available in MANY countries”. That is true and endorsed by the RBA. I cited two RBA statements confirming that truth. Keenyjaiz provided further authoritative proof. Are you calling Lucy Ellis a “lier” too? It was her document I cited. That mis-spelling of lier looks to reveal the identity of one of your socks “lierlier”.
This made up complaint of yours refers to this contribution I made last year which Shadow kindly posted:
Lucy Ellis does not have a history of flame wars on public forum when it comes to -ve gearing.. you do.. so no I do not call her a liar.
That mis-spelling was a mis-spelling... just like you to jump to wrong conclusions... :rolleyes:
Thankyou for now making the effort to cite the source of your data.. was that so hard ?
Now.. to work.
Quote:
You say you checked the ATO link and say I pulled the stuff from the air. You should know better than to think I make up shit. So, to show you to be the devious little lying tosser you are I'll go through it point by point. You say you checked the link and found I was wrong. I stated that the claimed net rental income for 2007-8 was minus $8.6b. The ATO link, http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/00225078.htm&page=37&H37, states:
Precisely what I wrote. Tell me, what is the difference between my statement and that of the ATO in the link? Fuck-all. You made up shit saying I was wrong.
Well you pompous ass, try the word.
"individuals" in the document.. this is an ATO document on Personal Tax, it does not include the taxation of companies. / hybrid trusts ...
Quote:
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.
You cited the document to support your claim above.. I do not dispute the link, or the line you quote..
"individuals claimed net rental income of -$8.6 billion, including $32.7 billion in rental deductions"
however it is not the total amount of -ve gearing that occurs with IP's. It is just a part of the real total.
As you may, or may not know, there are other structures that people use to buy IP's... they will not show up on the document you cited of Individual tax stats as Rental income/cost as they are done through another structure and dealt with in other ATO areas..
For example Hybrid Trusts would not show up on the document you cite at all.. I am sure there are other structures (company, other trusts perhaps) that are being used by those who elect to do so in order to gear into IP's... The IP forums go into some detail about how to structure away from personal income for various reasons. I believe some bulls posting here may very well know far more about this than you or I.
So yes, your cited number was incorrect in that you used it as a total for 'the claimed net rental income for 2007-8'... that is not correct.. it it the 'total net rental income for individuals for 2007-8'.
The difference between the two is, I suspect, not insignificant.. unless you can demonstrate otherwise, naturally.
As for all the other stuff... my point is that you did not cite the source of your numbers... I asked politely for you to do so and your response was one of anger... This led me to wonder if you did, in fact, have a source..
The first time I mentioned you pulling facts out of the air was after your angry outburst.. on the two occasions I asked you to cite the data I was not accusing you of doing so...
Thankyou for now citing the source of the other numbers..
I'm not sure that the 'lead bear (SIM)' one can be assumed to be correct, but I can now at least see that you have a source for where you got that number..
Quote:
The next issue in my quote was the 18% public and 12% private renting in the UK. I can't locate, without effort, the precise source of that at the moment but here's a University of York document (http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ukhr/ukhr0405/tables&figures/04%20017abcd.pdf) which puts the percentage of public renting at 19% and private at 10.2% for England. The public percentage is much higher in Scotland. So, my statement was sufficiently correct, understated in fact, in the context of my point.
This document (2005) while old, seems to support your numbers.. (Page 28, table 1)
Quote:
I was right in all my statements. You made up shit saying I was wrong and that I pulled the figures out of the air. Now fuck off.
Not really .. the numbers were correct, the context of your error (as I explained) was that you assumed that the numbers you cited told the whole story..
Quote:
PS - don't now try to pretend to your new bear fan club that you didn't make your money by speculating on property and getting the benefit of negative gearing. You admitted it all on GHPC.
Rubbish, I am not pretending anything... Show me a post where I say that I did not make (some) of my money on property. You are just making this up.
My history has been documented a number of times in detail... I have held a PPoR and IP at the same time.. yup.
What on earth makes you think that I should be a fan boy of -ve gearing forever after just because I used it once upon a time ?
None of us are fixed in mindset... we can, and do, change our values, roles and philosophies ... it's healthy.
R2 - the maximum benefit from NG comes the higher your marginal tax rate, accordingly, NGed property tends to be held by individuals. The company tax rate is only 30%. Trusts are usually a pass through and don't pay tax themselves (although do have to do a tax return). The pass through is to individuals that must pay the tax and, as above, for NG to work best high marginal tax rate individuals. If a trust isn't passing through, it will be usually being taxed as if it were a company, hence, 30% tax and the controller would not be maximising NG benefits.
All this means that the 8.6b is likely to be the lion's share of NG benefits for investment properties if people have their structures right (and people trying to minimise tax put effort into such things).
“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” - Inigo Montoya
R2 - the maximum benefit from NG comes the higher your marginal tax rate, accordingly, NGed property tends to be held by individuals. The company tax rate is only 30%. Trusts are usually a pass through and don't pay tax themselves (although do have to do a tax return). The pass through is to individuals that must pay the tax and, as above, for NG to work best high marginal tax rate individuals. If a trust isn't passing through, it will be usually being taxed as if it were a company, hence, 30% tax and the controller would not be maximising NG benefits.
All this means that the 8.6b is likely to be the lion's share of NG benefits for investment properties if people have their structures right (and people trying to minimise tax put effort into such things).
Hi barns,
Thanks for that.
Yes, I appreciate what you are saying... the higher marginal tax rates are indeed more attractive for -ve gearing on individuals, and company tax makes it less attractive..
However it is companies (and hybrid trusts) that often have the features that are attractive for holding assets. The ownership of IP's in these structures is not something that should be completely ignored.. does anyone have the numbers to show what % of IP's are not held by individuals ?
The fact that NG is not maximized by these structures does not mean that they do not make up a significant component of the total if enough IP's are held this way.
It is also quite possible that a growing percentage of these structures are being used to move taxable income into SMSF's which has the net effect of reducing tax returns further.
I am no expert on this matter.. but others claim to be and I would like to cite one ...
SMSFs and Property With the major banks now lending to superannuation funds and the growing frustration with the performance of public funds that cannot invest directly in houses, now is the time to find out a bit more about self managed superannuation. Self Managed Superannuation Funds (SMSFs) have always been able to purchase property, if it is in accordance with their investment strategy, but not many of them could afford to because until September 2007 they could not borrow. They can now borrow through non recourse loans. These arrangements are explained in detail in our Self Managed Superannuation Funds Booklet which is available under freebees on www.bantacs.com.au it also has a list of things to avoid such as personal guarantees. The exciting thing is that they can provide much better asset protection and tax benefits than holding a negative geared property in your own name. Here is how it works. Providing you do not make an unusually large contribution to defeat creditors the bankruptcy trustee cannot touch your superannuation. In my opinion it does not get better than that. Generally, asset protection means not holding a property in your own name, which usually means that the negative gearing benefits cannot be offset against your income. Certainly a loss in a SMSF cannot be deducted in your personal tax return but a contribution to a SMSF can usually be deducted in your return or if you are a wage earner you can utilise salary sacrificing to reduce your taxable income before it even reaches your tax return. For example, the super fund may have a rental property that is generating a $10,000 loss, this means if you contribute $10,000 in deductible super contributions to the fund it will not even have to pay the 15% contributions tax on that money and you or your employer will get a full tax deduction for the amount so it is as good as claiming the rental loss in your own return with the added advantage of asset protection. If you make enough superannuation contributions for the fund to be able to pay principle off the loan then the principle repayments are effectively taxed at 15% rather than your marginal rate if the property was held in your name. If you have some non cash flow deductions such as depreciation the 15% contributions tax won’t even apply to your principle repayments. It gets even better than this. The ultimate for a property investor is to get the deductions while their other income is high but reduce the tax on the capital gain. If the property is owned in a SMSF then any capital gain is taxed at a maximum of 10%. If you wait until you are 60 and it is in pension stage the tax rate is zero to the super fund and zero to you when you withdraw it from your fund. And there is even more! A SMSF is not subject to land tax in Queensland until the unimproved value of its freehold land holdings exceeds $350,000, as at 30th June, 2008. St George seem to have the best loans at the moment __________________
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