 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: The politics of housing |  |
|
<split from 'Australia's biggest tax avoiders' thread>
| David wrote: | | Seriously though, I think it's a good choice to at least give the Greens your first preference if you want decent action on these rorts. Which is not to say that Labor aren't more or less on the same wavelength on the issue, but I think there are question marks over whether they're willing to put their money where their mouth is. |
Any party that would end the disgraceful abuse of residential property as an investment vehicle would win my vote. For one election, I could even hold my nose and vote Green.
Nobody needs a second house, and the only tax breaks for "investing" in one should arise if you build new footage and thereby increase supply, not speculate on an existing asset, driving up prices and debt and sucking capital away from productive uses. Otherwise such "investment" should be taxed punitively, not encouraged.
Why Australians - especially young Australians - put up with this monstrous state of affairs and the debt slavery it is causing, is beyond me.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:09 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I agree 100%, Mugwump. Again, the Greens really do seem to be the only ones willing to touch it. Labor have had many chances to tackle negative gearing and done precisely nothing.
Our current financial situation leaves it off the table for the time being anyway, but even when I start fulfilling my career ambitions I doubt we'll be able to afford a place of our own. For better or for worse, our son will most likely be spending his entire childhood and adolescence in rental properties.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ As a point of comparison, the UK has no negative gearing, limited tax deductibility of rental income vs outgoings (ie you can only deduct a small amount of debt service costs against rental income), and stamp duty on any second property purchased by a single household is 3% higher than normal. The latter two have been brought in by a Conservative government, I am pleased to report. I don't think the UK has ever had negative gearing.
Several of these changes are recent ; it remains to be seen whether they have the desired effect.
Good luck with buying a house, David. Do what it takes. Even if you have to overpay at the outset, history says that in 30 years' time what you had to pay in 2015 will be irrelevant.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | ^ Any party that would end the disgraceful abuse of residential property as an investment vehicle would win my vote. For one election, I could even hold my nose and vote Green.
Nobody needs a second house, and the only tax breaks for "investing" in one should arise if you build new footage and thereby increase supply, not speculate on an existing asset, driving up prices and debt and sucking capital away from productive uses. Otherwise such "investment" should be taxed punitively, not encouraged.
Why Australians - especially young Australians - put up with this monstrous state of affairs and the debt slavery it is causing, is beyond me. |
the two young Australians I raised don't mind, we bought a rental property with exactly that in mind, so that when the time comes they will have a leg up.
I agree, it's a rort. And yes we took advantage of it. Have you never taken such an advantage? With our shit taxation system, and the government doing so much rorting of its own (trips around the world, chauffeurs, gourmet meals, life time pensions, just for a start) I make no apologies!
Since this is a thread about Australia's biggest tax avoiders, how about starting at the top?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Thanks Mugwump. It astounds me that an idea which is mainstream in the UK and accepted by conservative governments - in this case, inheritance tax - is so radical that even the Greens have walked away from it. What's going on?
TP, you've probably done the right thing by them, and you've worked hard to get to that stage, but how many young Australians have parents who can buy a property for them? For most of us it's simply not an option.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | You've probably done the right thing by them, and you've worked hard to get to that stage, but how many young Australians have parents who can buy a property for them? For most of us it's simply not an option. |
that's not entirely true, it comes down to priorities as well. we are doing well now, but we still started out with nothing handed to us, and both just tradespeople. when we bought one we were on one blue collar wage with overtime, not much of a deposit, trying to start a fledgling business in our limited spare time, and a mortgage on our house, and it terrified me. best thing we ever did.
the second part , "its not an option", i agree its certainly getting harder, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time. the voters continue to allow politicians to get away with so much. helping their mates, lifelong pensions after just 3 years, all the other perks. take them away from just one, and you could shut one homeless shelter by finding the folk in them homes!
there is always options, move somewhere less expensive, for a while at least, commute, get a second job, eat real food, not takeaway. but everyone is entitled to their priorities, you choose to live close to the city, in an expensive suburb, and part time study, instead of the second job, (hopefully the study affords you a decent paying job one day so you can live comfortably with just 1 job) thats entirely your right and choice to make.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Last edited by think positive on Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ That's your history, but, at the end of the day, your daughters are lucky to have the parents they do (I'm not saying I'm unlucky, but my parents certainly made very different choices in life). They didn't choose that. Nobody chooses how or where they grow up.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ That's your history, but, at the end of the day, your daughters are lucky to have the parents they do (I'm not saying I'm unlucky, but my parents certainly made very different choices in life). They didn't choose that. Nobody chooses how or where they grow up. |
did you read the whole post? about your options now?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
oh lookie a thread split!!!
hahaahahahahahaha
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ TP, We've had this discussion before, I think. I have no problem with people using the tax system as it is designed to be used. I use the few tax breaks afforded to me as well. My problem is with the policy makers and the policy itself, which is a stinker, in my eyes. You did it for your kids, and good for you. That doesn't make it a good policy.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | | That's your history, but, at the end of the day, your daughters are lucky to have the parents they do (I'm not saying I'm unlucky, but my parents certainly made very different choices in life). They didn't choose that. Nobody chooses how or where they grow up. |
did you read the whole post? about your options now? |
Sorry, I was just trying to reiterate the point in my earlier post: that the majority of young Australians of my generation do not get the privilege of having a property purchased for them. The statistics don't lie – for whatever reason, a great number of them (and we're talking hard-working taxpayers here) will never be able to afford their own home. That's the economic reality, and successive government policies have contributed to it.
On priorities, though, I more or less agree with you – that's more or less how I see things. At the moment, buying a house is a long way down as a priority for me for several reasons: a) it's prohibitively expensive, b) I see a house as a home, not an investment; earning money through the property market is not one of my goals in life, and c) despite its crappy moments (the worst of which would have to be moving on a regular basis), I find renting tolerable enough for now.
(By the way, regarding the suburb where we live, we never sought out a more expensive area; we simply wanted a house with a backyard for under $400 a week that wasn't too far away from the city. If it hadn't been for finding and falling in love with this house we probably would have ended up in Preston or Pascoe Vale.)
I was in high school when I realised that there were people of a very young age who were already setting themselves up for certain paths in life. In a certain number of cases, their goal was to earn as much money as possible, and in at least a few cases I had no doubt that they would, more or less, achieve their goal. I didn't envy them then, and I don't envy them now. Money has never been a significant motivating factor for me; it's not how I measure success or happiness in life. Sure, we all need some of it, but I never intended to spend my life on Centrelink. I wanted, and still want, to have a career I find satisfying and that allows me to experience happiness away from work. Now I have a child, a requirement is that it needs to provide enough (both in terms of money and freedom from work) for my son. Everything I'm doing is working towards that goal.
If I stop studying (which I practically have, because I'm nearly finished now), or if we move further from the city, or find a tiny apartment with no space for Ingmar to explore, that all has an impact on how we live. And it's not just about making short-term sacrifices for long-term gains, because all of these things play into how we will live in the long-term, too.
So, yes, I have choices, and some of those choices mean I have less money than I otherwise would, and that the already dim likelihood of owning a home is more or less non-existent. But what I can honestly say – and all anyone can ever really say – is that I'm doing what I think is best for us.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Thanks Mugwump. It astounds me that an idea which is mainstream in the UK and accepted by conservative governments - in this case, inheritance tax - is so radical that even the Greens have walked away from it. What's going on?
TP, you've probably done the right thing by them, and you've worked hard to get to that stage, but how many young Australians have parents who can buy a property for them? For most of us it's simply not an option. |
Actualy inheritance tax is another matter entirely. I support Australia's position on that. Those who have a lot of money avoid it easily, by gifting it to their children (they don't miss a few million, as they have more than enough) while the poor bloody middle (and working classes in London) pay it. So it is actually regressive. And it was, of course, money taxed when earned, with any investment earnings on it taxed as income. I might accept CGT on the family home given that accumulates value tax free. But that'd be it. Government and welfare has to be funded, but as a general principle, it's not the government's money - the government didn't work for it, the person who owns the money did.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | | That's your history, but, at the end of the day, your daughters are lucky to have the parents they do (I'm not saying I'm unlucky, but my parents certainly made very different choices in life). They didn't choose that. Nobody chooses how or where they grow up. |
did you read the whole post? about your options now? |
Sorry, I was just trying to reiterate the point in my earlier post: that the majority of young Australians of my generation do not get the privilege of having a property purchased for them. The statistics don't lie – for whatever reason, a great number of them (and we're talking hard-working taxpayers here) will never be able to afford their own home. That's the economic reality, and successive government policies have contributed to it.
On priorities, though, I more or less agree with you – that's more or less how I see things. At the moment, buying a house is a long way down as a priority for me for several reasons: a) it's prohibitively expensive, b) I see a house as a home, not an investment; earning money through the property market is not one of my goals in life, and c) despite its crappy moments (the worst of which would have to be moving on a regular basis), I find renting tolerable enough for now.
(By the way, regarding the suburb where we live, we never sought out a more expensive area; we simply wanted a house with a backyard for under $400 a week that wasn't too far away from the city. If it hadn't been for finding and falling in love with this house we probably would have ended up in Preston or Pascoe Vale.)
I was in high school when I realised that there were people of a very young age who were already setting themselves up for certain paths in life. In a certain number of cases, their goal was to earn as much money as possible, and in at least a few cases I had no doubt that they would, more or less, achieve their goal. I didn't envy them then, and I don't envy them now. Money has never been a significant motivating factor for me; it's not how I measure success or happiness in life. Sure, we all need some of it, but I never intended to spend my life on Centrelink. I wanted, and still want, to have a career I find satisfying and that allows me to experience happiness away from work. Now I have a child, a requirement is that it needs to provide enough (both in terms of money and freedom from work) for my son. Everything I'm doing is working towards that goal.
If I stop studying (which I practically have, because I'm nearly finished now), or if we move further from the city, or find a tiny apartment with no space for Ingmar to explore, that all has an impact on how we live. And it's not just about making short-term sacrifices for long-term gains, because all of these things play into how we will live in the long-term, too.
So, yes, I have choices, and some of those choices mean I have less money than I otherwise would, and that the already dim likelihood of owning a home is more or less non-existent. But what I can honestly say – and all anyone can ever really say – is that I'm doing what I think is best for us. |
fair enough
another option is to wait until you can afford the lifestyle your talking about, before having children.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | | That's your history, but, at the end of the day, your daughters are lucky to have the parents they do (I'm not saying I'm unlucky, but my parents certainly made very different choices in life). They didn't choose that. Nobody chooses how or where they grow up. |
did you read the whole post? about your options now? |
Sorry, I was just trying to reiterate the point in my earlier post: that the majority of young Australians of my generation do not get the privilege of having a property purchased for them. The statistics don't lie – for whatever reason, a great number of them (and we're talking hard-working taxpayers here) will never be able to afford their own home. That's the economic reality, and successive government policies have contributed to it.
On priorities, though, I more or less agree with you – that's more or less how I see things. At the moment, buying a house is a long way down as a priority for me for several reasons: a) it's prohibitively expensive, b) I see a house as a home, not an investment; earning money through the property market is not one of my goals in life, and c) despite its crappy moments (the worst of which would have to be moving on a regular basis), I find renting tolerable enough for now.
(By the way, regarding the suburb where we live, we never sought out a more expensive area; we simply wanted a house with a backyard for under $400 a week that wasn't too far away from the city. If it hadn't been for finding and falling in love with this house we probably would have ended up in Preston or Pascoe Vale.)
I was in high school when I realised that there were people of a very young age who were already setting themselves up for certain paths in life. In a certain number of cases, their goal was to earn as much money as possible, and in at least a few cases I had no doubt that they would, more or less, achieve their goal. I didn't envy them then, and I don't envy them now. Money has never been a significant motivating factor for me; it's not how I measure success or happiness in life. Sure, we all need some of it, but I never intended to spend my life on Centrelink. I wanted, and still want, to have a career I find satisfying and that allows me to experience happiness away from work. Now I have a child, a requirement is that it needs to provide enough (both in terms of money and freedom from work) for my son. Everything I'm doing is working towards that goal.
If I stop studying (which I practically have, because I'm nearly finished now), or if we move further from the city, or find a tiny apartment with no space for Ingmar to explore, that all has an impact on how we live. And it's not just about making short-term sacrifices for long-term gains, because all of these things play into how we will live in the long-term, too.
So, yes, I have choices, and some of those choices mean I have less money than I otherwise would, and that the already dim likelihood of owning a home is more or less non-existent. But what I can honestly say – and all anyone can ever really say – is that I'm doing what I think is best for us. |
I can't argue with that, but I think you are lining the pockets of the people who are already wealthy, rather than the pockets of your son. I'm not sure that's really best for you as a family, but it's your decision, of course. And maybe one day the .housing bubble will burst. It never really has in Australia, but it's never been as inflated as it is now, either.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | David wrote: | Thanks Mugwump. It astounds me that an idea which is mainstream in the UK and accepted by conservative governments - in this case, inheritance tax - is so radical that even the Greens have walked away from it. What's going on?
TP, you've probably done the right thing by them, and you've worked hard to get to that stage, but how many young Australians have parents who can buy a property for them? For most of us it's simply not an option. |
Actualy inheritance tax is another matter entirely. I support Australia's position on that. Those who have a lot of money avoid it easily, by gifting it to their children (they don't miss a few million, as they have more than enough) while the poor bloody middle (and working classes in London) pay it. So it is actually regressive. And it was, of course, money taxed when earned, with any investment earnings on it taxed as income. I might accept CGT on the family home given that accumulates value tax free. But that'd be it. Government and welfare has to be funded, but as a general principle, it's not the government's money - the government didn't work for it, the person who owns the money did. |
Not to get too far off topic (again! Ah well, no limits on thread splitting...  ), but I hardly think non-compliance is sufficient reason to walk away from policy - otherwise, we may as well just chuck most tax policy out the window. The goal ought to be enforcing compliance, surely.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
