Australian Housing Affordability Discussion

[CaptJCool]

Since when did we swap housing from an essential human right to an "investment vehicle"?

I lked John Birminghams article which was cited earlier
Federal election 2016: Thanks for paying for my house, loser

And even if there's a loan, let's stop a moment and look at the composition of who pays what ?

tenant pays weekly rent
government rebate on BOTH interest paid AND on building depreciation at 2% per annum (which in effect means the govt is subsiding your capital payment and your loan repayment.

so how much does the landlord need to chip in on an Ongoing basis?
Home - Total Investment Property Solutions

END result; I don't even need to stump up the cash in year one to tide me over time til the rebate comes back
Investment tax Q&A - Your Mortgage Australia

So at sale time I can receive a lovely windfall predominantly as a gift of the tenants and great Australia?

is the great Australiian dream over of home ownership for all? Will it die before the Great Barrier Reef ?

its counter intuitive but the larger the population (and the population of affordable buyers) the more concentrated the wealth becomes.

Perhaps we can rename our COMMON-Wealth to Buffetville or MurdochStan or Zimbabwe and then. We'd need Gates to keep th riff-raff out. lol

https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/investing/property. I like the Gold Coast chart here ...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/prop...of-corporate-law-changes-20160224-gn2ixm.html

Nocookies | The Australian

 

[Moindardt]

Since when did it become an essential human right to own your own home. The majority of the civilized world live in an "investment vehicle". You have a right to get off your butt, lower you standards and buy a home. For the majority of renters, it is too much effort or they don't want to live in the suburbs or it means they can party every night or some other sacrifice that the ... Omg... Wait for it... Home owners did... Or the investor who puts a roof over your head did.

The journey of a thousand miles doesn't begin by coughing about the person who has already done it.

 

[JohnK]

The journey of a thousand miles doesn't begin by coughing about the person who has already done it.

Are you sure? Why work when someone else can pay you to sit around all day?

 

[CaptJCool]

Shares accumulate value with no work from the shareholder, but wait, yes'm you work for the company as an employee to receive them or you inherited them or you worked elsewhere and bought them with your hard earned. A work colleague has bank shares from years back that through the share price uplift from $10 to $75 is now worth $700,000 without buying any extra shares in years (other then reinvesting yearly dividends)......

In MurdochStan. There's but 24 hours a day with the hourly earn rate a big fortune, which was btw inherited......

 

[whatmeworry]

Are you sure? Why work when someone else can pay you to sit around all day?

Don't really need to work, I just need to make sure I have a large income tax debt which I can offset by negative gearing a couple of empty homes which I hope will increase in price.

 

[JohnK]

Don't really need to work, I just need to make sure I have a large income tax debt which I can offset by negative gearing a couple of empty homes which I hope will increase in price.

You actually need to work hard in the first place. Maybe even include a breakdown there somewhere to make it look better and feel worth the extra effort.

You can't sell me a guilty complex. In fact I am starting to grow on dajop's suggestion of the old negative gearing calculations. I can get used to not paying ~$70,000 capital gain and book some 3 month cruise somewhere instead.

Can you tell I am tired of working for bludgers?

 

[drron]

Don't really need to work, I just need to make sure I have a large income tax debt which I can offset by negative gearing a couple of empty homes which I hope will increase in price.

To have a large income tax debt you first need an even larger income.Now some are very rich and don't need to work but most who negatively gear do need to work hard to get the income in the first place.For your information you should look up the ATOs break up of tax returns.A little less than 250,000 taxpayers earn over $180000 but only a little over 18000 reduce their taxable income to under $180000 to reduce the level of tax they pay.
The truth is the majority of people who negatively gear are salary earners.Once again you are just using envy as a political tool.

Another interesting fact you may contemplate.The tax office doesn't separate negative gearing out from other tax deductions but the Australian Taxpayers Association in their submission to the recent Senate Tax Inquiry put the cost at 4bn dollars.The ATO does calculate the cost of the CGT exemption on the main place of residence.It comes out at 35bn.So I guess you are dismayed that homeowners are making non home owners pay many thousands of extra dollars of tax per year.Of course that is nonsense.

 

[Moody]

My,My Moody you have excelled yourself getting everything wrong in your reply.
Bottom of the Harbour schemes were never legal.Detected by the ATO in Perth in 1973 with legal advice that the promoters could be charged with defrauding of the Commonwealth.Case referred to the Deputy Crown Solicitor Perth who in polite terms were incompetent at best.Never properly investigated and didn't report back until 1979 that there was insufficient evidence.
So then John Howard introduced legislation in 1980 making it illegal under the tax act.

So they were "never legal" but were made illegal in 1980???? There is a word for that concept that the moderators don't let me use .....

But methinks you are deliberately missing the point that just because something is legal today (i.e. negative gearing), doesn't mean it must be morally pure and/or good for the economy. If you remember the topic is housing (un)affordability, and negative gearing contributes quite significantly to that. Or don't you agree with that either?

As to your second statement the Reserve Bank wonders where you have been.From 1990-2005 houses rose 7.2% pa and from 2005-2015 by 5% pa.Adjusted for inflation it is 4.5% and 2.5% respectively.

Cherry picking data is a climate denier's game, so how come ................. nevermind. Here's a link from your favourite Murdoch rag No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

The ABS reported that Sydney house prices grew 14% last year on average .... which is a tad more than the 2.5% figure you are trying on with me. Try again.....

 

[drron]

So they were "never legal" but were made illegal in 1980???? There is a word for that concept that the moderators don't let me use .....

But methinks you are deliberately missing the point that just because something is legal today (i.e. negative gearing), doesn't mean it must be morally pure and/or good for the economy. If you remember the topic is housing (un)affordability, and negative gearing contributes quite significantly to that. Or don't you agree with that either?





Cherry picking data is a climate denier's game, so how come ................. nevermind. Here's a link from your favourite Murdoch rag No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

The ABS reported that Sydney house prices grew 14% last year on average .... which is a tad more than the 2.5% figure you are trying on with me. Try again.....

Dear oh dear Moody.Quit whilst you were ahead.They were actually illegal in 1973 and the Perth DCS botched the investigation so the change in law was to make sure the promoters didn't get away with it.Note the offences were picked up in 1973 when the magnificent Gough was in power but it was left to Little Johnnie to fix it up.

My figures are from the reserve bank and I have given you the figures over several years.The fact that they went up 14% last year in Sydney doesn't affect the 25 year average for Australia.As I said they are the Reserve Bank figures so I am not trying to put anything over you.I have quoted 25 year figures,you merely 12 months so just who is cherry picking?

 

[whatmeworry]

Stuff it I am getting into getting negative as well. Which tax haven should I use, Cayman Islands or Panama? Could be a case of which has the best AA status runs?

 

[Moody]

More statistics from the industry this time ..... http://www.domain.com.au/news/sydne...below-1-million-domain-group-20160420-go9kie/

Note that when a certain Tony A was installed (temporarily) as PM in September 2013, the median Sydney house price was $725K. Fast forward to September 2015 and it is $1044K .... or 44% in 2 years.

<redacted> (Political comments removed)

 

[whatmeworry]

Banner at today’s Bulldog - Demons game.

View attachment 70602

@dannymcginlay The tut-tutting from the Melbourne supporting MCC members when this went up was priceless. #GoDees

 

[Moindardt]

More statistics from the industry this time ..... http://www.domain.com.au/news/sydne...below-1-million-domain-group-20160420-go9kie/

Note that when a certain Tony A was installed (temporarily) as PM in September 2013, the median Sydney house price was $725K. Fast forward to September 2015 and it is $1044K .... or 44% in 2 years.

On the bright side we then no longer had the budgie-smuggling baboon as PM, but is it worth it? First home buyers might say no!

I really love how they simplify/distort the figures. If they used statistical analysis with standard deviations I would suggest it would come down a bit. I don't know how many people are looking at 7 bedroom house on the Harbour for their first home.

Can we keep the politics out of it or I think JT will start getting the boot ready.

 

[Moindardt]

Stuff it I am getting into getting negative as well. Which tax haven should I use, Cayman Islands or Panama? Could be a case of which has the best AA status runs?

Mine's in the Seychelles by still haven't worked out how to get a status run into that. I should have done it in Panama.

Give it a shot. Not one person has dissuaded you from buying a home with negative gearing. I don't know anything about Sydney but I am sure someone would know a good broker down there.

 

[drron]

More statistics from the industry this time ..... http://www.domain.com.au/news/sydne...below-1-million-domain-group-20160420-go9kie/

Note that when a certain Tony A was installed (temporarily) as PM in September 2013, the median Sydney house price was $725K. Fast forward to September 2015 and it is $1044K .... or 44% in 2 years.

<redacted> (Political comments removed)

So now it's 2 years versus 25.
Unfortunately you were attacking negative gearing which has been gang busters for 25 years not 2.
Housing affordability is another subject entirely.
And by the way Australia is a lot more than just Sydney.I know of no figures suggesting that negative gearing is only happening in Sydney.

 

[Moody]

So now it's 2 years versus 25.
Unfortunately you were attacking negative gearing which has been gang busters for 25 years not 2.
Housing affordability is another subject entirely.
And by the way Australia is a lot more than just Sydney.I know of no figures suggesting that negative gearing is only happening in Sydney.

Let me go through the last 25 years of negative gearing of property in Australia, if that makes you happy. Fine - I know it will just annoy you.

In 1990 you were more likely to be positively geared when investing in property, and negative gearing "cost" the economy a few hundred million at best. Then in 1999 Howard introduced the 50% reduction in CGT, and house prices started their inexorable climb. Negative gearing became de rigueur, as rental losses were tax deductable and would be more than compensated for by the capital gain. Negative gearing now "costs" the economy billions (the last year I can find for net rental loss is 2012 and it was at $8 billion). Whilst it can happen anywhere in Australia, the #1 negative gearing location is Sydney. Where do you live, drron?

 

[straitman]

Remaining OT for a moment. Seems that where I live that we are way below average as our median price rise last year was -ve.

 

[Moindardt]

Remaining OT for a moment. Seems that where I live that we are way below average as our median price rise last year was -ve.

Shhhhh. You have no idea what they will do to you. Do you know what happened to all the temperature monitoring stations that didn't support the establishments hypothesis?? We all know that the science is proven and nothing has ever disagree with global warming.. I mean climate change.. honest I do... please not the kids...

 

[Isochronous]

Let me go through the last 25 years of negative gearing of property in Australia, if that makes you happy. Fine - I know it will just annoy you.

In 1990 you were more likely to be positively geared when investing in property, and negative gearing "cost" the economy a few hundred million at best. Then in 1999 Howard introduced the 50% reduction in CGT, and house prices started their inexorable climb. Negative gearing became de rigueur, as rental losses were tax deductable and would be more than compensated for by the capital gain. Negative gearing now "costs" the economy billions (the last year I can find for net rental loss is 2012 and it was at $8 billion). Whilst it can happen anywhere in Australia, the #1 negative gearing location is Sydney. Where do you live, drron?

Negative gearing does not "cost" anything - revenue not collected by the government is not an expense. Or are you a fascist who thinks all property and money belongs to the government?

 

[whatmeworry]

Remaining OT for a moment. Seems that where I live that we are way below average as our median price rise last year was -ve.

Good reason for that... Not enough jobs in Sale