Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by garry17, May 8, 2019.
With respect, I’m a long term renter.
Irrelevant. Reduce or eliminate, it will still drive Investors out of the market.
And it's also irrelevant that tax breaks 'benefit' the rich. This isn't about punishing people you don't like, this is about securing housing.
Once again, that struggling family may well end up homeless if Property Investors leave the market. And they will leave the market under such proposals. Even the best case scenario for that family, is an increase in rent due to a smaller pool of properties. Why would you support that?
The greater good of Australia(ns) is that which keeps everyone fed and housed. Since the private sector currently underpins some of the important functions in this regard, any interference in their ability to keep investing will impact the very people you're trying to protect. And not in a good way. The rich will remain rich - simply investing their money elsewhere - and the poor will become poorer.
In which case you should have considered what would happen to the rental market if Investors abandon property.
Not at all. New property is favoured by overseas investors (which they often prefer to keep vacant for a variety of reasons), and therefore not subject to Australian tax breaks. Local investors very much prefer established properties.
I guarantee that investors will move their money to shares (or whatevs) if negative gearing is messed with. I've been in the game for decades, and can say with absolute confidence that it's as sure as the sun coming up tomorrow.
The houses are still there, even when abandoned by investors. Nothing will change, I think...
The SMSF investors may leave the property market, but they are not the only ones there.
The overseas investors don’t build houses in my area. They buy established houses.
The Chinese bloke who used to live down the street has bought another property where he and his family will live so that their son can go to another school which is rated better. There are tenants in his house in this street. He has other rentals and a factory which is rented.
Rental investment has always been around and will continue.
If I were investing, bricks and mortar is an acceptable choice at present, bearing in mind the political and economic situation with the US and China.
Of course it will. Investors are prepared to decamp the minute negative gearing is messed with. What do you think will happen when the number of rental properties reduces by even 10%? How about 30%? Or 50% .. because that could easily happen.
And the houses WILL still be there, but they will have been sold to owner-occupiers.
Overseas investors don't BUILD, they buy off the plan. Very big difference.
Bricks and mortar are only a good investment while it's tax effective. It's about bottom lines, not comfort.
You’re talking like a Capitalist , Crank.
I live in WA, where developers have a strong arm in gettings things through. It is a big industry, bigger than I think is right. Enviromental concerns are often neglected. With all the buildings going up (incl.appartment blocks) you have to raise the question, who will be living in them?
Whatever is build, is either owner occupied, rented to someone, or is staying empty. We have all of these around....
Some are not renting out through the poor protection of landlords, eg.when a tenat leave the place in a state no one deserves.
If Labor wins some investores might be looking for other options, to me it never occured in owning shares as compared to bricks and mortar.
Time will tell, nothing will change much, I think.
I'm personally socialist, but capitalism provides the freedom to exercise that preference. I'm therefore a champion of BOTH models. I don't delude myself that a socialist society would provide such freedom.
What does spastic development have to do with anything? You don't think all those vacant properties held by overseas investors are suddenly going to be made available to the renting pool, do you? Because I guarantee, they won't. With less (local) investors in the market, there will be less rental properties, and that's the bottom line. Even a 10% reduction will push prices up to a point where some will no longer be able to afford to rent.
So if investors are honestly trying to increase the available rental properties then it won't affect them. The whole reason behind negative gearing was to increase rental property numbers ... Or that's what they tell us.
I noticed that the builders association says that it will cost jobs, I think the exact opposite, as negative gearing is still available but only on new dwellings it should create employment. That is unless investors go away which makes liers of them.
I believe that the reason we had to sell of all our Australian brands is to cash up the wealthy so they could jump on the negative gearing band wagon.
I believe that negative gearing is one of the worst financial ideas imposed on Australia and purely for the purpose of making the wealthy wealthier and a way to control the rest of us.
Who said investors are trying to increase the available rental properties? Either way, it's a symbiosis. Those who choose not to own real estate, volunteer to pay investors for the use of property the investor chose to own. The investor agrees to make that property available and fit for use in exchange. If you don't like this symbiosis, or don't like YOUR side of it, then you are free to do something different. That's the beauty of a free market capitalist society - you get to choose. However, if you've made a choice not to own real estate, you really need to support any initiatives which support and encourage property investment. You can't have it both ways.
How does negative gearing 'control' you? Please be specific.
Does not compute!
knowing you through your qualified and balanced replies for quite some time, I would love to rent our home out to you. Not interested in moving to the southwest of WA?
Beautiful area, stone throw away from the ocean. Work it appears is more and more shifting towards Perth, unfortunately. So we might be relocating sooner or later.....
That is such a kind thought and totally unexpected.
Perth is lovely but my heart belongs to Melbourne.
Thank you again.
I can’t believe how nice people on this forum can be. It makes up for the others.
I am a strong advocate for humanism, treating others the way we want to be treated, makes life worth while.
No surprise there. The average 'socialist' is in fact the polar opposite, so it follows that the real thing will be too uncomfortable to process.
Let me simplify it: Socialism is collectivism. All equal ... all contributing to the collective, with the end goal of self-sufficient independence from the complex and changeable 'grid'. Necessarily voluntary and essentially small scale, since such models are not for everyone - and in order for it to actually work, EVERYONE must contribute. Since it is voluntary, it therefore depends upon a broader society of considerable freedoms, plus access to the basics of self-sufficient collectivism (primarily, property). That means a CAPITALIST democracy.
I have a rental vacant shortly. 130 year old terrace I've almost finished restoring.
I'll give you mates rates (does that make me seem nice?)
Tolerance of different politics (in ones friends and family) is a very good measure, in this regard.
I’m comfy where I am, but thank you.
Is it negatively geared?
I knew that, was just playing along with the idea that someone trying to sell you something is a kindness
No gearing here, we're cash buyers. Not the soundest approach, economically, but it's a comfort zone. We're both die hard Lefties and don't like the idea of evading taxes, even when it's 'legitimate'.
Separate names with a comma.