Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Reverse Mortgages: A huge opportunity to tap into the hidden wealth of retirees; What’s holding back the wall of money?
Topic Started: 12 Nov 2013, 08:49 PM (4,131 Views)
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

herbie
16 Nov 2013, 12:53 AM
This is the second time I've told you to go away Pauk (Alex edited that to sound WAY nicer than what I said!)
That will have been the auto swear filter.
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


Alex Barton
16 Nov 2013, 09:27 AM
That will have been the auto swear filter.
Yes.

I am slowly coming to the opinion that fervent Socialism causes about the same amount of problems in the world as fervent Capitalism. Both seem to be very firmly based in the principle of bleeding money from those who work and strive to improve their lot in life.

The old time Socialists had some balls at least - They were prepared to die in revolutionary war to implement their beliefs. (Which just might explain why the Soviet system lasted as long as it did? The people had put a lot into getting it in place.)
But the modern day ones simply want to democratically vote themselves the right to take other people's money off them - Weak, craven, small people that they are.

I see nothing 'wrong' with Kerry Packer getting the old age pension. Let alone 'grandma' - That is simply as it should be.
But that is not how the grasping Socialist who spends his life looking around to see who might have some money he can covet/take off them sees it of course. Because his belief system tells him that doing so is 'fair'.

And all in a country where lots of our 'poor' people can afford to and do drive cars. And smoke. Etc. The desire to introduce more Socialism in this country is a joke. Though it appeals to the politicians as a way to continue to buy themselves votes.

Just as aside, the thought occurred to me that if we were not so heavily democratic and Socialist in this country, we just might not have found ourselves in a situation where grasping pollies would need to drive the prices of our land and housing ever higher to support their tax take/freebie handouts/voter base?

Not saying the Capitalists HAVEN'T been up to their necks in driving it of course! But the Socialists are equally culpable I suspect?

Fuck 'em BOTH!!! :mad: :re:
Edited by herbie, 16 Nov 2013, 11:14 AM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Bardon
Default APF Avatar



I am going balls deep in reverse mortgages when the time comes. The best that the kids can hope for Is I die of a heart attack in Rio or something in order that they inherit some equity.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Olmule
Default APF Avatar


Herby,

You seem to be saying that everyone should get government OAP, regardless of wealth...and that to discuss otherwise is thieving socialism. Or have I got your position wrong?

Who should pay for the OAPs for wealthy people? The government, the tax payers. And then the relatives inherit the farm while the tax payer has been footing the bill.

Sorry Herby, but your position seems pretty darn contradictory to me.

IMO means tests should be extended to PRs, granny doesn't need to be kicked out of her home.

RMs are a good idea in this day and age. It is the same as self funded retirement. This concept has its roots in capitalism.

To not consider this idea is socialism.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


Olmule
16 Nov 2013, 08:59 PM
Herby,

You seem to be saying that everyone should get government OAP, regardless of wealth...and that to discuss otherwise is thieving socialism. Or have I got your position wrong?

Who should pay for the OAPs for wealthy people? The government, the tax payers. And then the relatives inherit the farm while the tax payer has been footing the bill.

Sorry Herby, but your position seems pretty darn contradictory to me.

IMO means tests should be extended to PRs, granny doesn't need to be kicked out of her home.

RMs are a good idea in this day and age. It is the same as self funded retirement. This concept has its roots in capitalism.

To not consider this idea is socialism.
G'day Olmule - Always good to read your stuff.
No, you don't have my position wrong. I do think everyone should get the old age pension irrespective of their means. Speaking generally, those with significant means will have paid significant taxes during their working lives. So to say to them that they will not even get the paltry aged pension after doing so, seems just a bit too grasping to me. (It can create amusing situations though - I read that Prince Charles has turned 65 and will get the Brit 111 quid per week old age pension now. He is going to donate it to charity apparently.)
It is not an issue I'm especially passionate about either way though. (Though remains indicative of the grasping, small minded nature of 'true' Socialism to me.)
My main concerns with 'Logic's' stuff are more along the lines that:
* He seems to regard anyone with over $750K as wealthy? - Which is total foolishness in this day and age.
* He makes little attempt to discriminate in any way as to how that 'wealth' was obtained - In truth, I think he simply wants to tax it because it exists - Which is typical of mindless Socialism - While using some sort of broad brush justification that much if not all of it was almost certainly obtained 'undeservedly' through house price inflation - Which will not be correct in many cases. And even where (leaving aside considerations of whether such 'wealth' is deserved or not) it was, the house price inflation was not something those people by and large actively chose. The politicians and policy makers and bankers (and Socialists I suspect) drove that sequence of events. Gawd Olmule, lots of us DON'T have houses in Sydney that have gone from being valued at $25K or whatever to $5M or whatever over our lifetimes. But 'Logic' seems to want to financially attack everyone because some do?
* Death tax is an anathema - The system has a person's entire lifetime in which to tax them - Do it up front and do it in their lifetime; Not in some cowardly, underhanded way by waiting until they are dead. (Fuck Socialists these days are gutless!!!)
* The proposals attack what I think should be the basic unit of society (the family) and attempt to replace it with the concept that 'the government' is your true family. Which is pure Socialism. And about as destructive to society as concepts come. IMO.
In summary, yes, sure, there are problems with the system. But the answer is to address those basic underlying problems. Whatever they might be? Not to simply say "Oh, we need more tax to keep this fucked up system going for my term in office - Who can we take it off?" - Irrespective of 'deservedness' or the broader societal consequences or how much we fuck up people's thinking and turn them into a bunch of entitlement minded gov dependant gimme, gimme types.
I once had strong Socialist leanings Olmule. But the more closely I've looked at it, the more I've come to loathe Socialism - It's a bit like Capitalism in one way at least I guess (and shit of course); In that a little bit of it spread around in the right places can act as 'fertilizer'; But any more than that little bit in the right places, is just out and out damaging long term.

PS: Whether a person takes a RM on their home is their choice. No-one else's. Give them the same age pension as everyone else and if the can are happy staying in that house then let them.

PPS: It's another flaw of Socialism - As idealogues, Socialists can't seem to help themselves but think they have all the answers (when they aren't even smart enough to have acknowledged that SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK) and then want to force others to adopt their 'answers'. Which is stupid, arrogant and just out and out domineering nastiness.
Edited by herbie, 17 Nov 2013, 10:15 AM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


herbie
17 Nov 2013, 09:24 AM

No, you don't have my position wrong. I do think everyone should get the old age pension irrespective of their means. Speaking generally, those with significant means will have paid significant taxes during their working lives. So to say to them that they will not even get the paltry aged pension after doing so, seems just a bit too grasping to me. (It can create amusing situations though - I read that Prince Charles has turned 65 and will get the Brit 111 quid per week old age pension now. He is going to donate it to charity apparently.)
It is not an issue I'm especially passionate about either way though. (Though remains indicative of the grasping, small minded nature of 'true' Socialism to me.)
Herbie, I am with ya man on so much of that post, I am probably a bit more of a residual leftie, but most of that post resonates with me.
I feel like I am on some kind of alternative universe, I may have to lengthen that short pier I was threatening you with long walk suggestions.

:hmm:
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993
The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Bardon
Default APF Avatar


herbie
17 Nov 2013, 09:24 AM

* The proposals attack what I think should be the basic unit of society (the family) and attempt to replace it with the concept that 'the government' is your true family. Which is pure Socialism. And about as destructive to society as concepts come. IMO.
In summary, yes, sure, there are problems with the system. But the answer is to address those basic underlying problems. Whatever they might be? Not to simply say "Oh, we need more tax to keep this fucked up system going for my term in office - Who can we take it off?" - Irrespective of 'deservedness' or the broader societal consequences or how much we fuck up people's thinking and turn them into a bunch of entitlement minded gov dependant gimme, gimme types.
I once had strong Socialist leanings Olmule. But the more closely I've looked at it, the more I've come to loathe Socialism - It's a bit like Capitalism in one way at least I guess (and shit of course); In that a little bit of it spread around in the right places can act as 'fertilizer'; But any more than that little bit in the right places, is just out and out damaging long term.

PS: Whether a person takes a RM on their home is their choice. No-one else's. Give them the same age pension as everyone else and if the can are happy staying in that house then let them.

PPS: It's another flaw of Socialism - As idealogues, Socialists can't seem to help themselves but think they have all the answers (when they aren't even smart enough to have acknowledged that SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK) and then want to force others to adopt their 'answers'. Which is stupid, arrogant and just out and out domineering nastiness.
Some choice descriptions there Herbie particularly on the breakdown of the family. They claim to love humanity, it's just people that they can't stand. And yes they are always wanting the state to take other peoples money and will call you greedy for wanting to keep your own money.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Bardon
16 Nov 2013, 04:36 PM
I am going balls deep in reverse mortgages when the time comes. The best that the kids can hope for Is I die of a heart attack in Rio or something in order that they inherit some equity.
You won't get in all that deep. Most lenders base the LVR on an age based equation.

Even with the interest capitalised it's hard to see the value of a home being completely eroded, and most lenders have an 80% capitalisation limit built into the contract. Even if you live to be 150 there will still be something to leave the offspring.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Logic
Unregistered

Herbs
Thanks for your post and worthy of more consideration.
The difference is that the ageing of our nation is not a normal event and someone will have to pay. All that I can deduce from your post is that you think no one should pay, or the taxpayers should.
The fiscal challenges we face as pensions balloon out and heaths costs soar must be addressed.

Bottom line is that it is not fair that a pensioner can live in a very expensive house, have $1 million in cash and still get a part pension. You suggestion is that they should and this is where we disagree, correct?
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


Logic
17 Nov 2013, 02:30 PM
The difference is that the ageing of our nation is not a normal event and someone will have to pay. All that I can deduce from your post is that you think no one should pay, or the taxpayers should.
The fiscal challenges we face as pensions balloon out and heaths costs soar must be addressed.

Bottom line is that it is not fair that a pensioner can live in a very expensive house, have $1 million in cash and still get a part pension. You suggestion is that they should and this is where we disagree, correct?
Life is not 'fair' Pauk. I am born ugly and stupid in a third world country of parents who have no particular social or professional contacts of note. You are born handsome and intelligent in a first world one of parents who do. That is not 'fair'. One must accept much of this for what it is. And stop trying to make everything all 'fair' - Or what your version of 'fair' is anyway.

It can just as reasonably be argued that it is 'fair' to say to people that if you have minimal assets, you will simply have to keep working until you drop dead of old age - NO retirement for you! - Because YOU can not afford to retire on YOUR assets. And it would NOT be 'fair' to expect someone ELSE to pay for YOUR retirement. (But that is not your view on life of course. That is not what YOU see as 'fair'.)

Re "You(r) suggestion is that they should and this is where we disagree, correct?" - Incorrect! We disagree over everything. Because you are a Socialist. And I know that Socialism is a fundamentally flawed system.

Edited by herbie, 17 Nov 2013, 04:50 PM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
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