 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | ^Yeah, but Libertarianism isn't cherry picking; it's applying friction-less expectations to a world of friction. |
 |
|
|
|
 |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^E.g., as outlined above, the housing market has massive frictions associated with it.
And, of course, national boundaries aren't mere "cherries"; they're giant, pervasive boundaries, especially in a context of global economics.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Ok so I read the whole of the "funny" one.
However, it has some big holes in it. The guy is an orthodontist. Therefore his income is probably closer to 7 figures; have you priced braces for the rug rat yet? Thank god my kids have my naturally perfectly straight teeth!
The holiday house is only vacant for 10 months because so many kids have ugly teeth he can't get there, and no one will pay the $20,000 a week to rent it when he's not there.
The kid wouldn't get embarrassed, unless his old man is James Hird, no one will know, he will lie.
Truth is though, that those on a more modest income (when we entered the legitimate rental market around 20 years ago, I believe hubby's wage was around $35k as a foreman, with 2 kids in nappies we were one income only) I'm guessing the equivalent is around $50k these days, without overtime. Those guys won't be investing now. They can't afford the risk because who knows what the powers that be will do next. Kinda like when you have your own business and can choose how to handle your own super, you don't trust the government so you put in as little as possible, except when that lump sum can occasionally help out the family trust).
Therefore Ted the orthodontist will have less competition and he will buy his 5th and 6th property before Christmas.
Good one, keep the blue collar worker right where you want him.
I checked out the stats, there is still quite a few low income families in the rental market. I know three kids in their early twenties, live at home, have one or two properties, on jobs they have done a diploma for, not a degree. The degree kids seem to think life will be easy, apart from the early starts, (pre noon) once they get out of uni. (My best friend says it was a shock for her 6 months out of uni daughter, but the $1,100 a week she is earning (without overtime payments) makes it worthwhile, she is currently saving a deposit for a rental or if she decides to move out -until she realises what a good wicket she is on and returns home!) I guess those hard working kids will be the last of them. Take incentive away from the next batch, or the next batch of foreman who worked their way up the chain.
Maybe it needs a step system. Or maybe keeping a good man down is the plan, cheers
_________________
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: | |
|
| Think Positive wrote: | | Good one, keep the blue collar worker right where you want him. |
Yep, in their own home, as opposed to renting from said orthodontist! (Or pushing up the prices for everyone else if they're one of the lucky few who can afford multiple properties.)
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Think Positive wrote: | | Good one, keep the blue collar worker right where you want him. |
Yep, in their own home, as opposed to renting from said orthodontist! (Or pushing up the prices for everyone else if they're one of the hard working and forward thinking few who can afford multiple properties.) |
Fixed
And David, truth is, for the most part, you make your own luck
_________________
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: | |
|
There we will have to agree to fundamentally disagree. And at any rate, I don't see why buying a house should be considered such a massive privilege. The prices don't have to be so high. Why should we tolerate such a system when we could have lower housing prices, fewer tax breaks for people who don't need them and more revenue to spend on infrastructure (including, fittingly enough, housing projects)?
The idea that by ending negative gearing we'd somehow be ripping off poor hard-working blue-collar workers with multiple properties to their name is essentially absurd, hence the satirical article above.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You're ripping people off because you're taxing a loss. Writing off losses on income tax is normal pretty much everywhere, it's only in Australia it has a nonsense name and has become a political football. People should NOT be paying tax on income they're not earning and interest payments on a property are a liability however you want to spin it. Nobody would be bitching about this if house prices stagnated or the housing bubble bursts. It's just more politics of jealousy.
If you're worried about house prices then focus on loosening of laws surrounding new developments and getting rid of payouts to buy houses (first homebuyers grants) that are just political bribes and profligate government spending. There are far more worthy targets for government spending cuts, stop trying to come up with new and creative ways to tax people more and figure out how to spend less. |
|
|
|
|
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | You're ripping people off because you're taxing a loss. Writing off losses on income tax is normal pretty much everywhere, it's only in Australia it has a nonsense name and has become a political football. People should NOT be paying tax on income they're not earning and interest payments on a property are a liability however you want to spin it. Nobody would be bitching about this if house prices stagnated or the housing bubble bursts. It's just more politics of jealousy.
|
Do you ever know what your talking about?
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-truth-about-negative-gearing,8688
| Quote: | First, though, its useful to clarify what negative gearing is. Its a tax rule that allows investors not only property investors, but mainly property investors who run their investment at a loss to claim that loss against their other income.
Why would a rental property run at a loss? Usually because the investor borrows most of the purchase price and interest repayments on the loan (mortgage) are higher than the income (rent).
In most other countries, this would mean the investor did not have to pay tax on the rent they received. But it would not allow them to reduce the tax they pay on their other usually wage and salary income. Australia is an exception.
So negative gearing encourages people to invest in property and it particularly encourages them to invest by borrowing most of the price of the house. It might already be obvious why this is a very odd kind of housing and investment policy, seemingly designed to encourage people to over-extend and expose themselves to big risks if property prices were to fall |
| think positive wrote: | | Well I was watching channel two the other day (by accident of course!) and he explained his reasoning, made a lot of sense, panic was mentioned, making it worse, I'll think clearer when I'm soberer |
If you want to understand the reasoning behind continued negative gearing you need to be drunk. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 3.14159 wrote: |
| think positive wrote: | | Well I was watching channel two the other day (by accident of course!) and he explained his reasoning, made a lot of sense, panic was mentioned, making it worse, I'll think clearer when I'm soberer |
If you want to understand the reasoning behind continued negative gearing you need to be drunk. |
Um?
Why because you think I'm too stupid to get it sober?
Of course I understand why people choose that method, we chose another path, with the goal being different, and achieving exactly what we wanted, to own one extra property to give our kids a leg up in the market
And yeah David's objection is obvious, yada yada yada and so is my reply, it's our money our kids our choice, the tax is paid, so it's none of your godamn business!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | There we will have to agree to fundamentally disagree. And at any rate, I don't see why buying a house should be considered such a massive privilege. The prices don't have to be so high. Why should we tolerate such a system when we could have lower housing prices, fewer tax breaks for people who don't need them and more revenue to spend on infrastructure (including, fittingly enough, housing projects)?
The idea that by ending negative gearing we'd somehow be ripping off poor hard-working blue-collar workers with multiple properties to their name is essentially absurd, hence the satirical article above. |
So why r u so envious? Or resentful? Yeah I know I know your not, your looking out for the common man. Well guess what, this is the story of the common man who stuck his neck out, scrimped and saved, and worked bloody long hours to achieve it.
You could do it too, but choose not too, that's your choice, but stop trying to punish those willing to put the work in
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | You're ripping people off because you're taxing a loss. Writing off losses on income tax is normal pretty much everywhere, it's only in Australia it has a nonsense name and has become a political football. People should NOT be paying tax on income they're not earning and interest payments on a property are a liability however you want to spin it. Nobody would be bitching about this if house prices stagnated or the housing bubble bursts. It's just more politics of jealousy.
If you're worried about house prices then focus on loosening of laws surrounding new developments and getting rid of payouts to buy houses (first homebuyers grants) that are just political bribes and profligate government spending. There are far more worthy targets for government spending cuts, stop trying to come up with new and creative ways to tax people more and figure out how to spend less. |
Bravo!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Well I was watching channel two the other day (by accident of course!) and he explained his reasoning, made a lot of sense, panic was mentioned, making it worse, I'll think clearer when I'm soberer |
| 3.14159 wrote: |
If you want to understand the reasoning behind continued negative gearing you need to be drunk. |
| think P wrote: | Um?
Why because you think I'm too stupid to get it sober?
|
I've never thought you were stupid,self righteous and stubborn maybe, but not stupid!.
Governments giving money away like that, ie making property only affordable to those with money to buy property is a travesty of the taxation system!
Super co contributions to those all ready putting $100,000 in Super to save on pensions is logic bent and twisted beyond belief!
Sydney property prices rose a massive 12.4 per cent in 2014 and have continued to surge, climbing a staggering three per cent in March alone.
However, Hockey denied that Sydney has become 'unaffordable' pointing out that people are still buying properties.
'No. Look, if housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no one would be buying it,' he argued.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says Hockey has insulted families with a simplistic response.
'How are Australians supposed to find the good jobs that pay more when unemployment is at its highest levels in more than a decade under his government?' Mr Shorten told AAP.
| tony Abbott wrote: | In a bid to show his government was not out of touch, Mr Abbott said he felt for hard-working paramedics and nur-ses who saved lives but could not afford to buy a home.
He conceded even he had found it difficult living in Sydney on a wage far greater than the average Australian. Even as a cabinet minister, sometimes its hard to pay a Sydney mortgage and I know over the years Ive earned a lot more than the average person, he said. |
| think p wrote: | | And yeah David's objection is obvious, yada yada yada and so is my reply, it's our money our kids our choice, the tax is paid, so it's none of your godamn business! |
Who the government gives tax-payers money to is no one's business but those that get it?
WOW! You sound like Bronwyn Bishops love child!
| Quote: | Sydney property prices rose a massive 12.4 per cent in 2014 and have continued to surge, climbing a staggering three per cent in March alone.
However, Hockey denied that Sydney has become 'unaffordable' pointing out that people are still buying properties.
'No. Look, if housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no one would be buying it,' he argued.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says Hockey has insulted families with a simplistic response.
'How are Australians supposed to find the good jobs that pay more when unemployment is at its highest levels in more than a decade under his government?' Mr Shorten told AAP.
Senator Penny Wong labelled Hockey, the federal member in North Sydney, 'out of touch'. |
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3116437/Go-good-job-pays-Treasurer-Joe-Hockey-s-advice-young-people-struggling-afford-buy-home.html#ixzz41XAvmevK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What happened to the great Australian dream of secure empoyment and a 1/4 acre to call home?
It went up in a cloud of industry shut-downs, record unemployment and negatively GEARED smoke and mirrors!!! |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | If you're worried about house prices then focus on loosening of laws surrounding new developments and getting rid of payouts to buy houses (first homebuyers grants) that are just political bribes and profligate government spending. |
$10.000 is the maximum a NEW FIRST home buyer can get and it wouldn't even cover the stamp duty.
Studies show $38 billion could be saved by getting rid of negative gearing and large Government Super Co-payments.
Like I said, what happened to the great Aussie dream? |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 3.14159 wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | If you're worried about house prices then focus on loosening of laws surrounding new developments and getting rid of payouts to buy houses (first homebuyers grants) that are just political bribes and profligate government spending. |
$10.000 is the maximum a NEW FIRST home buyer can get and it wouldn't even cover the stamp duty.
Studies show $38 billion could be saved by getting rid of negative gearing and large Government Super Co-payments.
Like I said, what happened to the great Aussie dream? |
There is no doubt that negative gearing is middle class (what a large group that is) welfare by another name.
Once you start to offend the middle classes you get the types of reactions noted earlier on any discussion about it like kids who have diplomas are more street smarter than kids who do degrees & other tosh.
John Howard was quite right when he noted yesterday that to remove negative gearing as Keating tried to do saw an immediate lack of rental & a surge in housing prices.
I believe there is too much self interest & it will penalise too many of the so called middle classes if you remove negative gearing. I am one of those although I'm positively geared. I hope to get another place to negatively gear.
At the end of the day Negative Gearing is:
* Wealth distribution to the middle & upper classes, no two ways about it.
* Has almost zero to do with how hard one works etc.
* Has been encouraged to be endemic amongst the middle classes that it is now seen as a right!
* Has too much self interest to ban
Above all, never offend the middle classes such as banning Negative Gearing if you want to remain in political power.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:13 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
