A lot of your manifesto has been debunked. Would you like to post it for the 359th time so we can all have another go?
Shouldn't wealthy people like yourself with 'large' and 'successful' business and commercial interests contribute more?
You're nothing but a granny basher.
Zaph Much of my agenda is discussed with others in the MSM as you know, and land tax, or raising the GST is hardly 'my agenda'. Next year the asset test exemption for aged care bonds changes and I was happy to be part of that discussion as well.
I am certainly happy to pay my fair share of tax. I am proud that over half of my revenues are now OS and that I do create real GDP for this nation. I certainly do support a super profits tax for banks and mining companies.
Between you and I, I have also attracted foreign investment into my business from the worlds largest software company, and am very proud that an Aussie company secured such an investment from a US company...
I am committed to mining the minds and the benefits it brings to our nation. There is one year 5 child at Teesdale Primary School who feels very proud that his app idea became reality and now sells globally and that his school has got free iPads as a result of him. Hard to put a value on that, yet social outcomes are very much part of my businesses.
I actually agree that OAP should not be means tested. I detest means testing of welfare and consider it a race to the bottom.
But the fact is that OAP is means tested...however, PR is not included at all in that means and this is where I have a problem.
I also find it interesting that many of the bulls (I know you are not a bull) are happy that housing is now treated as an investment vehicle to make money on and they openly don't care about the effects on society...but then they jump up and down about how detrimental to society including PRs in OAP means testing would be. It is a hugely contradictory position that most of them hold and they can't even see it.
I actually agree that OAP should not be means tested. I detest means testing of welfare and consider it a race to the bottom.
But the fact is that OAP is means tested...however, PR is not included at all in that means and this is where I have a problem.
I also find it interesting that many of the bulls (I know you are not a bull) are happy that housing is now treated as an investment vehicle to make money on and they openly don't care about the effects on society...but then they jump up and down about how detrimental to society including PRs in OAP means testing would be. It is a hugely contradictory position that most of them hold and they can't even see it.
I don't think that pushing old people out of their houses would be a game changer either for house prices or society in general, I just don't feel that society has the moral right to force people to leave their homes just because it has become valuable.
No one will be tossing grandma out of a house in downtown Thargomindah just because the house is in easy walking distance to the pub and the bowls club, but the proposal is to toss granny out of her house in an inner city suburb because it has become a desirable location, and they have become old.
We could speed up the attrition rate by enforcing expulsion using punishing economic measures, but once that has been done what then, the attrition rate would then revert back to the normal rate.
Short term gain at the expense of the elderly to please Pauk and a few more people - do we need that?? Really??
A non-homeowning couple is allowed an additional 150k in other assessable assets than a home owning couple before pensions are impacted. The value of the PPOR is not accounted for at all. Whats the median value of a house or a dwelling now?
PPOR value is treated far preferentially to other assets.
My argument remains unchanged.
peter fraser
17 Nov 2013, 10:51 PM
I don't think that pushing old people out of their houses would be a game changer either for house prices or society in general, I just don't feel that society has the moral right to force people to leave their homes just because it has become valuable.
No one will be tossing grandma out of a house in downtown Thargomindah just because the house is in easy walking distance to the pub and the bowls club, but the proposal is to toss granny out of her house in an inner city suburb because it has become a desirable location, and they have become old.
We could speed up the attrition rate by enforcing expulsion using punishing economic measures, but once that has been done what then, the attrition rate would then revert back to the normal rate.
Short term gain at the expense of the elderly to please Pauk and a few more people - do we need that?? Really??
I am not into the granny tossing proposals at all Peter, RM is a good way to avoid this.
Alternatively make the OAP non-means tested.
Either way it is less contradictory than the current arrangement which treats PR preferentially to other assets.
Ok, that was my understanding. Please provide more details if you can - I am happy to be corrected.
ps - thanks for the term "incorrect statement"...much nicer than some other terms I have seen I am not into the granny tossing proposals at all Peter, RM is a good way to avoid this.
Alternatively make the OAP non-means tested.
Either way it is less contradictory than the current arrangement which treats PR preferentially to other assets.
I agree that home ownership does give certain advantages to the homeowner over a renter, but given that a home owner isn't an impost on government supplied housing, have you considered that this might be part of the big picture, governments encouraging home ownership to promote economic activity and to decrease the reliance on the state.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
I agree that home ownership does give certain advantages to the homeowner over a renter, but given that a home owner isn't an impost on government supplied housing, have you considered that this might be part of the big picture, governments encouraging home ownership to promote economic activity and to decrease the reliance on the state.
Peter, the PPOR is not means tested for pensions and pensioners living in a $10 million dollar and no other assets will get the full pension. a dear me, two wrongs in one day. First, the incorrect call on propertyspruiker.com,au being owned by Neil jean an and now trying to state that the PPOR is counted in the asset test for pension eligibility.. Not a good day Peter.
You can say that I. Want to kick granny out and you would also be wrong. I want RM's provided by Centrelink to keep granny in her home. Got it?
I agree that home ownership does give certain advantages to the homeowner over a renter, but given that a home owner isn't an impost on government supplied housing, have you considered that this might be part of the big picture, governments encouraging home ownership to promote economic activity and to decrease the reliance on the state.
found the same link
Oh yes we all know that our governments encourage housing price growth to drive economic growth. This is just another example of stealthy government funded house price support to add to the long, long list.
For a bunch of socialism haters you bulls are a strange, contradicted bunch! So as I see it this is the gist of what you are saying:
Governments should and do use tax payer funds (in the form of preferential means testing of OAP) to encourage wealthy landowners to stay in their high value houses so that these same wealthy individuals don't overcrowd the public housing system. And to support the wealthy like this with tax payer funds is capitalism however to encourage them be self funded retirees (i.e. by removing tax payer support) is horrible socialism...
I don't know many people who would intentionally put themselves at the mercy of the Aussie public housing system.
RMs would allow these wealthy grannies to stay in their houses anyway - you guys seem to miss that point.
Oh yes we all know that our governments encourage housing price growth to drive economic growth. This is just another example of stealthy government funded house price support to add to the long, long list.
For a bunch of socialism haters you bulls are a strange, contradicted bunch! So as I see it this is the gist of what you are saying:
Governments should and do use tax payer funds (in the form of preferential means testing of OAP) to encourage wealthy landowners to stay in their high value houses so that these same wealthy individuals don't overcrowd the public housing system. And to support the wealthy like this with tax payer funds is capitalism however to encourage them be self funded retirees (i.e. by removing tax payer support) is horrible socialism...
I don't know many people who would intentionally put themselves at the mercy of the Aussie public housing system.
RMs would allow these wealthy grannies to stay in their houses anyway - you guys seem to miss that point.
A few points. I only own one house. I certainly own investment property, but not houses so I'm not trying to hold up the housing market. I wouldn't have said that I'm a raging liberal either, you assume too much.
You mention that perhaps the OAP should not be means tested. I think that it should be, but that's just my personal opinion, if it was not means tested I really wouldn't care that much.
I'm not talking about wealthy people. They may have some asset wealth because the house that they bought in 1955 is now worth real money, but they are still cash poor. Paper wealth doesn't interest someone who only has a short time left on this earth. Their family and support group are worth much more.
For bears who constantly tell us that a house is NOT an investment but simply a place of abode, you bears very quickly turn that on it's head when it suits your purpose.
Touche'
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
thankyou, it is refreshing to spar with a gentleman who admits when he has been hit, not too common around here that's for sure
Housing either is an investment, like any other, or its not and should be treated as such in entirety...or not at all. Bulls want their cake and to be able to eat it too and that is the current situation we are in. Glad we agree on this one.
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