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 (32,802 Views)
barns
Member Avatar


Rastus2
19 Mar 2011, 01:41 AM


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 ...

Here

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
__________________

It depends what you are saying. Sure ips are in trusts and companies, including, smsf and I believe that the incidence of this will increase as more wage earners use smsf to buy property, but it doesn't make sense for these to be negatively geared, eg at a marginal tax rate of 15% a smsf should have the property positively geared for this to make sense, also the banks require at least 30% deposit for smsf borowings as they have to non-recourse loans. This also pushes the property towards positive gearing and is counter to a normal negative gearing strategy.if you are not getting negative gearing benefits on a property you are better off paying it off as fast as possible so a prudent smsf holding an ip will suck the bulk of future super contributions until the smsf owns the ip outright.

Hopefully this will lead over time for more ips to be positively geared 'true' investments with less reliance on negative gearing, but somehow I believe this to be wishful thinking.
“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” - Inigo Montoya
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Rastus2
19 Mar 2011, 01:41 AM


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 ...

Here

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
__________________

Anecdotally, I can confirm that some high earners use trusts and self-managed super funds to minimise the amount of tax that they pay and many of them are highly invested in real estate. I use the example of my mother, who is a babyboomer GP that runs her own practice. I know for a fact that she grossed at least $250K in the 2007/2008 financial year (I've seen the business statements), which is more than double what I made, and yet when it came to the $600 cheques that KRudd was handing out, she managed to get one while I did not. This is what happens when you are a high earner and can afford a good accountant. You can reduce your taxable income by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I know for a fact that in the early stages she used negative gearing extensively to reduce her taxable income in her 40's and this is the main tax minimisation strategy open to the majority of taxpayers but my understanding is that using structures such as Unit trusts and SMSF's is much more effective, particularly if you run your own business (like many professionals) or are nearing retirement. However, what I would say is that whatever the tax minimsation strategy, the result is almost always 'subsidised' investment in assets for the individual at the cost of the general taxpayer. In the case of my mother (and no doubt many others in her position), she has been able to reduce her tax bill by well over a million dollars and invest all of that saved tax into real estate. Not bad if you can get away with it, huh?
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Rastus2
Member Avatar


barns
19 Mar 2011, 07:24 AM
It depends what you are saying. Sure ips are in trusts and companies, including, smsf and I believe that the incidence of this will increase as more wage earners use smsf to buy property, but it doesn't make sense for these to be negatively geared, eg at a marginal tax rate of 15% a smsf should have the property positively geared for this to make sense, also the banks require at least 30% deposit for smsf borowings as they have to non-recourse loans. This also pushes the property towards positive gearing and is counter to a normal negative gearing strategy.if you are not getting negative gearing benefits on a property you are better off paying it off as fast as possible so a prudent smsf holding an ip will suck the bulk of future super contributions until the smsf owns the ip outright.

Hopefully this will lead over time for more ips to be positively geared 'true' investments with less reliance on negative gearing, but somehow I believe this to be wishful thinking.


I think the tendency to use other structures to minimize tax should not be ignored in any tally... the motivation is strong and there is often money tied up in companies/SMSF that can only be access in those structures for various reasons... thus a large pool of funds is isolated and can not be simply used as income for someone to -ve gear off... if it is to be done it must be done in these structures, despite their less than maximum taxation benefits when compared to high tax rate individuals.
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


SmokinJebus
19 Mar 2011, 08:21 AM
Anecdotally, I can confirm that some high earners use trusts and self-managed super funds to minimise the amount of tax that they pay and many of them are highly invested in real estate. I use the example of my mother, who is a babyboomer GP that runs her own practice. I know for a fact that she grossed at least $250K in the 2007/2008 financial year (I've seen the business statements), which is more than double what I made, and yet when it came to the $600 cheques that KRudd was handing out, she managed to get one while I did not. This is what happens when you are a high earner and can afford a good accountant. You can reduce your taxable income by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I know for a fact that in the early stages she used negative gearing extensively to reduce her taxable income in her 40's and this is the main tax minimisation strategy open to the majority of taxpayers but my understanding is that using structures such as Unit trusts and SMSF's is much more effective, particularly if you run your own business (like many professionals) or are nearing retirement. However, what I would say is that whatever the tax minimsation strategy, the result is almost always 'subsidised' investment in assets for the individual at the cost of the general taxpayer. In the case of my mother (and no doubt many others in her position), she has been able to reduce her tax bill by well over a million dollars and invest all of that saved tax into real estate. Not bad if you can get away with it, huh?


Thanks,

Yes I certainly know people who hold IP's in other structures than simply their own name... Sometimes the reasons for not having the IP in an individuals name seems to be outweighed by other factors .. none the less, -ve gearing occurs ...

Some of the docs I know have incredibly complex tax structures... all for their own reasons.
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
 
Strindberg
Member Avatar


Rastus2
19 Mar 2011, 12:35 AM
"individuals" in the document.. this is an ATO document on Personal Tax, it does not include the taxation of companies. / hybrid trusts ...

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.

It IS the total amount of -ve gearing that occurs with IP's. You are weazelling and making up false diversionary shit.
The subject of this thread is negative gearing. All the current discussion about negative gearing relates to the provision for individuals. It does not relate to trusts and companies for the every simple reason that negative gearing has no meaning in the context of trusts (where losses stay within the trust) and companies. To say, as you have above, that negative gearing occurs outside of individuals is your made up shit. Negative gearing is more than claiming losses. It appears that you don't even know what it is.
Negative gearing refers to a lack of quarantining for individuals' losses. Now go away.
Housing costs to Income broadly unchanged since 1994 - re-ratified here
The People of Australia have the highest median wealth in the World
2002-2012 10 year house price growth the SLOWEST since 1952-1962
"There are two kinds of people in this world: ones that fiddle around wondering whether a thing's right or wrong and guys like us." (Hugo to Gagin in Ride the Pink Horse)
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Rastus2
Member Avatar


Strindberg
19 Mar 2011, 09:35 AM
It IS the total amount of -ve gearing that occurs with IP's. You are weazelling and making up false diversionary shit.
The subject of this thread is negative gearing. All the current discussion about negative gearing relates to the provision for individuals. It does not relate to trusts and companies for the every simple reason that negative gearing has no meaning in the context of trusts (where losses stay within the trust) and companies. To say, as you have above, that negative gearing occurs outside of individuals is your made up shit. Negative gearing is more than claiming losses. It appears that you don't even know what it is.
Negative gearing refers to a lack of quarantining for individuals' losses. Now go away.


You are incorrect and now getting upset for no reason yet again.

Negative gearing

The topic is broader than you make out despite the lack of quarantining being an important aspect of -ve gearing it is not the only issue. The wider discussion of how much -ve gearing costs the gov (in lost tax income) has already been discussed here (your are the one who cited the figure's) and so any loss due to -ve gearing is important.

There is cost to the government (tax income lost) by -ve gearing of Real Estate that is broader than the individual's tax component.

The subject of this thread is NOT negative gearing for individuals... if you wanted to limit it to that topic then you should have made the topic state that, or included the word "individual" in your OP..


You did not so deal with it.

Edited by Rastus2, 19 Mar 2011, 10:36 AM.
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
 
lierlier
Default APF Avatar


Strindberg
18 Mar 2011, 10:54 PM
That mis-spelling of lier looks to reveal the identity of one of your socks “lierlier”.
Stringy, It is nice to know that I am always embedded in your thoughts - I must have riled you up. Mission accomplished :excited:

By the way, I have voluntarily declared that I am Master Shadow's sock puppet. How dare you name me as someone else's puppet :lol:
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Rastus2
18 Mar 2011, 09:02 PM
I did not offer to do your research for you.. stop lying please.
You said... 'There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?'

Are you now claiming that you weren't offering to do it for me?

Why not just admit that when you actually went looking for these 'numerous examples', the only one you managed to find was one that backed up my position - i.e. that the only way to determine motive with any degree of certainty is to ask. Now you're just wriggling and squirming to avoid having to admit you were wrong.
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
19 Mar 2011, 05:36 PM
You said... 'There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?'

Are you now claiming that you weren't offering to do it for me?

Why not just admit that when you actually went looking for these 'numerous examples', the only one you managed to find was one that backed up my position - i.e. that the only way to determine motive with any degree of certainty is to ask. Now you're just wriggling and squirming to avoid having to admit you were wrong.


Wow .. You are serious about this ???

I could as easily said, there are heaps of ways to do that kind of search, or do you want me to wipe your bottom for you ?... It was an offhand comment that you should DYOR and DYOW (work)... And you really took it as an ofer of me doing all your own work ...

You. Are one funny guy... :D
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
19 Mar 2011, 08:34 PM
Wow .. You are serious about this ???

I could as easily said, there are heaps of ways to do that kind of search, or do you want me to wipe your bottom for you ?... It was an offhand comment that you should DYOR and DYOW (work)... And you really took it as an ofer of me doing all your own work ...

You. Are one funny guy... :D
We were having a discussion about how to prove someone's motivation using a method other than asking them, and you said... 'There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?'.

But now you're saying the last part of your statement was insincere.

1 - Was the first part of your statement also insincere - i.e. do you not really believe there are numerous examples of how to prove someone's motivation?
2 - If you do believe numerous such examples exist, can you please link to a few of them?
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