Check out your letter box for the propaganda from those so caring people in the real estate industry. They have the battlers interest at heart :D LOL

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/05/reia-locusts-invade-your-mail-box/


Quote:

Desperate REIA locusts invade your mail box By Leith van Onselen You can’t keep a good parasite down. Yesterday, I received the attached flyer in my email inbox from the Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA) warning of calamity if Labor’s negative gearing reforms are enacted. Let’s take a look at their piss weak arguments. First, the supposed effect on tenants:

Do the ALP have the battlers at heart though. ALP policy only disallows deductions against wage and salary income, not business or investment income. If you have lots of interest, dividends, distributions or trade through a corporation ( the stuff of rich people ) you can go on negatively gearing 'till the cows come home. If you're an average Joe that just earns a salary, no negative gearing for you.

So much for the battlers. If these tossers were really interested in housing affordability they'd use the new rules to give us a tax cut instead of keeping it or fix up the woeful supply side.

crocodile wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 2:59pm:

Do the ALP have the battlers at heart though. ALP policy only disallows deductions against wage and salary income, not business or investment income. If you have lots of interest, dividends, distributions or trade through a corporation ( the stuff of rich people ) you can go on negatively gearing 'till the cows come home. If you're an average Joe that just earns a salary, no negative gearing for you. So much for the battlers. If these tossers were really interested in housing affordability they'd use the new rules to give us a tax cut instead of keeping it or fix up the woeful supply side.

You still have a choice to buy new properties instead of old dumps that were built 50 years ago. But you light shoe brigaders just want to keep recycling the same old dumps so you can get your capital gains virtually risk free and at other tax payers expense :(

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

crocodile wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 2:59pm: Do the ALP have the battlers at heart though. ALP policy only disallows deductions against wage and salary income, not business or investment income. If you have lots of interest, dividends, distributions or trade through a corporation ( the stuff of rich people ) you can go on negatively gearing 'till the cows come home. If you're an average Joe that just earns a salary, no negative gearing for you. So much for the battlers. If these tossers were really interested in housing affordability they'd use the new rules to give us a tax cut instead of keeping it or fix up the woeful supply side. You still have a choice to buy new properties instead of old dumps that were built 50 years ago. But you light shoe brigaders just want to keep recycling the same old dumps so you can get your capital gains virtually risk free and at other tax payers expense :(

Don't know about you Nails but I've never put my hand in my pocket to give my dosh to a negative gearer. Not even once. They can choose to buy new properties right now if they so desire. Can't imagine what might be stopping them.

crocodile wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 3:20pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 3:06pm: crocodile wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 2:59pm: Do the ALP have the battlers at heart though. ALP policy only disallows deductions against wage and salary income, not business or investment income. If you have lots of interest, dividends, distributions or trade through a corporation ( the stuff of rich people ) you can go on negatively gearing 'till the cows come home. If you're an average Joe that just earns a salary, no negative gearing for you. So much for the battlers. If these tossers were really interested in housing affordability they'd use the new rules to give us a tax cut instead of keeping it or fix up the woeful supply side. You still have a choice to buy new properties instead of old dumps that were built 50 years ago. But you light shoe brigaders just want to keep recycling the same old dumps so you can get your capital gains virtually risk free and at other tax payers expense :( Don't know about you Nails but I've never put my hand in my pocket to give my dosh to a negative gearer. Not even once. They can choose to buy new properties right now if they so desire. Can't imagine what might be stopping them.

greed is what stops them !! They only want to invest in established properties and areas to minimize their risk and sure up their capital gains. Investment is about taking risk and not offloading risk onto other tax payers which is exactly what is happening now !

rusty will have chiseled into his tomb stone...

here lies RUSTY..


he died with hate in his heart for all investors..

he could not stand to see one man prosper.

even if it meant putting another mans roof over his head....

cods wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

rusty will have chiseled into his tomb stone... here lies RUSTY.. he died with hate in his heart for all investors.. he could not stand to see one man prosper. even if it meant putting another mans roof over his head....

you can prosper as much as you like but just don't do it at other tax payers expense. Take the risk and take the pain and stop expecting corporate welfare for your little property empires !!

Last quarter (or twelve months - not sure - on the Novosti last night) only 11% of mortgages went to First Home Buyers.......

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 3:44pm:

cods wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 3:38pm: rusty will have chiseled into his tomb stone... here lies RUSTY.. he died with hate in his heart for all investors.. he could not stand to see one man prosper. even if it meant putting another mans roof over his head.... you can prosper as much as you like but just don't do it at other tax payers expense. Take the risk and take the pain and stop expecting corporate welfare for your little property empires !!

Where's this other taxpayer's expense. I don't know of a single sole who's handed over their money to a negative gearer.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

You still have a choice to buy new properties instead of old dumps that were built 50 years ago.

you realise it's often the investor that restore those 'dumps' ... why are you so determined to save the dumps for first home buyers?

$400,000 LIBERAL PARTY DONOR - ALWAYS BACK SELF INTEREST

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7441126/13179412_974820409281678_1288644151088713751_n.jpg

John Smith wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 3:06pm: You still have a choice to buy new properties instead of old dumps that were built 50 years ago. you realise it's often the investor that restore those 'dumps' ... why are you so determined to save the dumps for first home buyers?

not the ones they rent out. Some are not fit to put your dog in.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 3:06pm: You still have a choice to buy new properties instead of old dumps that were built 50 years ago. you realise it's often the investor that restore those 'dumps' ... why are you so determined to save the dumps for first home buyers? not the ones they rent out. Some are not fit to put your dog in.

Real estate purchase advice from the couch surfer.   :-?

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 3:06pm: You still have a choice to buy new properties instead of old dumps that were built 50 years ago. you realise it's often the investor that restore those 'dumps' ... why are you so determined to save the dumps for first home buyers? not the ones they rent out. Some are not fit to put your dog in.

that's a complete load of rubbish .. I just last week finished managing a refurb on a rental. From top to toe, and now that it's finished it's rented out to a nice young family

John Smith wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 3:06pm: You still have a choice to buy new properties instead of old dumps that were built 50 years ago. you realise it's often the investor that restore those 'dumps' ... why are you so determined to save the dumps for first home buyers?

Depends on the 'dump'. My first home was a very aged farm house with a couple of funny additions to what was the at-one-time visiting (once a week or so) nurse's quarters... heritage, too.

Despite its obvious deficiencies, it was no dump and once I insulated it and put in a pot belly at the far end of the structure and hot water and water pressure, was very comfy.

The house in Sydney, by comparison, was dark and cold, but next door to the Waratahs Rugby ground..... just across the park.....

Then the country place was mud brick and ironbark...

#4 is a long-established house on the lower North Coast and admirably positioned for the boat ramp..... warm and comfy and only needing a few changes to suit aging people....

EVERY one of those I improved.... EVERY ONE!

crocodile wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 4:47pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 3:44pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 3:38pm: rusty will have chiseled into his tomb stone... here lies RUSTY.. he died with hate in his heart for all investors.. he could not stand to see one man prosper. even if it meant putting another mans roof over his head.... you can prosper as much as you like but just don't do it at other tax payers expense. Take the risk and take the pain and stop expecting corporate welfare for your little property empires !! Where's this other taxpayer's expense. I don't know of a single sole who's handed over their money to a negative gearer.

Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year so non-investors subsidising investors and so the government is less able to provide other programs.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 8:28pm:

Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year s

using that logic, you not paying more tax reduces govt. revenue ...


lets double your tax rate

Flipping is revenue for the government but does nothing for the real estate market while mortgages are astronomical compared to incomes. Something will give and everyone will go belly up. I think both sides of government know this. They're just playing the I dare you, no I dare you game!

First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise. It may take longer but it puts another young family in the real estate market.

I'm with you on this lastnail. If you want to invest in this seemingly get rich scheme do it on your own back not the back of tax paying dollars and save our real estate market from catastrophe. We need a more sustainable system that looks out for future generations not this grab as much as you can now culture of greed. It's getting ridiculous.

John Smith wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 8:43pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 8:28pm: Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year s using that logic, you not paying more tax reduces govt. revenue ... lets double your tax rate

that's right. investors not paying tax reduces gov revenue. the solution is to make investors pay their fair share of tax by abolishing negative gearing ;)

Honest Joe wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise

first home buyers are generally cash strapped ... sure, they might improve it slowly over a 10 yr period, but by the time they finish it's already outdated

Honest Joe wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

Flipping is revenue for the government but does nothing for the real estate market while mortgages are astronomical compared to incomes. Something will give and everyone will go belly up. I think both sides of government know this. They're just playing the I dare you, no I dare you game! First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise. It may take longer but it puts another young family in the real estate market. I'm with you on this lastnail. If you want to invest in this seemingly get rich scheme do it on your own back not the back of tax paying dollars and save our real estate market from catastrophe. We need a more sustainable system that looks out for future generations not this grab as much as you can now culture of greed. It's getting ridiculous.

the house flippers can always invest in new properties but they are greedy and want existing properties where the established jobs and infrastructure are. They want a sure bet that is being subsidized by other tax payers !!

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 8:28pm:

crocodile wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 4:47pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 3:44pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 3:38pm: rusty will have chiseled into his tomb stone... here lies RUSTY.. he died with hate in his heart for all investors.. he could not stand to see one man prosper. even if it meant putting another mans roof over his head.... you can prosper as much as you like but just don't do it at other tax payers expense. Take the risk and take the pain and stop expecting corporate welfare for your little property empires !! Where's this other taxpayer's expense. I don't know of a single sole who's handed over their money to a negative gearer. Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year so non-investors subsidising investors and so the government is less able to provide other programs.

Geez Nails, you really are a nonce. They get to claim it all back at a later date when it becomes positively geared or sold. Every last cent of it. Net change of tax revenue = precisely zero.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 9:04pm:

Honest Joe wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:01pm: Flipping is revenue for the government but does nothing for the real estate market while mortgages are astronomical compared to incomes. Something will give and everyone will go belly up. I think both sides of government know this. They're just playing the I dare you, no I dare you game! First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise. It may take longer but it puts another young family in the real estate market. I'm with you on this lastnail. If you want to invest in this seemingly get rich scheme do it on your own back not the back of tax paying dollars and save our real estate market from catastrophe. We need a more sustainable system that looks out for future generations not this grab as much as you can now culture of greed. It's getting ridiculous. the house flippers can always invest in new properties but they are greedy and want existing properties where the established jobs and infrastructure are. They want a sure bet that is being subsidized by other tax payers !!

Funny that. It's called return on investment. What's stopping all the other buyers moving on new properties. Tell me it's nothing to do with population one year growing by 400,000 and only 50,000 new dwellings built. Damn don't mention the supply side.

John Smith wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 9:03pm:

Honest Joe wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:01pm: First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise first home buyers are generally cash strapped ... sure, they might improve it slowly over a 10 yr period, but by the time they finish it's already outdated

That's perfect. A bit more paid off the place plus a little bit of capital allows the first home buyer to progress into a new build or better area and let the next young couple come along and buy and do the same thing. Now that's sustainable without being ridiculous. I started out on an oldie and replaced a deck, got some mates around to pull down the old fibro shed, probably asbestos and help me build something newer and more secure to keep me goodies. Gave it a fresh coat of paint and new carpet etc. Made a bit to help me move on into something a bit more modern in a better area for the kids and then eventually into my brand new home. Wasn't much mortgage stress at all because I didn't have to pay a ridiculously exorbitant price for my first home. Real estate is dodgy Sh!t that'll sink us I reckon. Slow the market down before we all lose.

John Smith wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 9:03pm:

Honest Joe wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:01pm: First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise first home buyers are generally cash strapped ... sure, they might improve it slowly over a 10 yr period, but by the time they finish it's already outdated

how come I keep hearing about record numbers of people doing home renovations ?

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 10:00pm:

John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:03pm: Honest Joe wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:01pm: First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise first home buyers are generally cash strapped ... sure, they might improve it slowly over a 10 yr period, but by the time they finish it's already outdated how come I keep hearing about record numbers of people doing home renovations ?

Cheaper to renovate than move. Don't blame the ridiculous stamp duty charges of course.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 10:00pm:

John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:03pm: Honest Joe wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:01pm: First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise first home buyers are generally cash strapped ... sure, they might improve it slowly over a 10 yr period, but by the time they finish it's already outdated how come I keep hearing about record numbers of people doing home renovations ?

you seem confused ... you do understand what first home buyers are right?

Honest Joe wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

Flipping is revenue for the government but does nothing for the real estate market while mortgages are astronomical compared to incomes. Something will give and everyone will go belly up. I think both sides of government know this. They're just playing the I dare you, no I dare you game! First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise. It may take longer but it puts another young family in the real estate market. I'm with you on this lastnail. If you want to invest in this seemingly get rich scheme do it on your own back not the back of tax paying dollars and save our real estate market from catastrophe. We need a more sustainable system that looks out for future generations not this grab as much as you can now culture of greed. It's getting ridiculous.

The proposed negative gearing changes will not be retrospective so it may
cause of rush of property buying now.
After that - who knows?

Most landlords I know are making a loss especially
when tenants move out & they have to repair the wear & tear or
do a bit of renovating to make the place livable again.

John Smith wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 10:38pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 10:00pm: John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:03pm: Honest Joe wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:01pm: First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise first home buyers are generally cash strapped ... sure, they might improve it slowly over a 10 yr period, but by the time they finish it's already outdated how come I keep hearing about record numbers of people doing home renovations ? you seem confused ... you do understand what first home buyers are right?

I'm sure a landlord is going to go to great expense to renovate a place and bring it up to modern day expectations just for the next tenant :D LOL

crocodile wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 10:25pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 10:00pm: John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:03pm: Honest Joe wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:01pm: First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise first home buyers are generally cash strapped ... sure, they might improve it slowly over a 10 yr period, but by the time they finish it's already outdated how come I keep hearing about record numbers of people doing home renovations ? Cheaper to renovate than move. Don't blame the ridiculous stamp duty charges of course.

Well that's a good argument to replace stamp duty with revenue obtained from abolishing negative gearing. A win win for first home buyers ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on May 19^th, 2016 at 10:49am:

John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 10:38pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 10:00pm: John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:03pm: Honest Joe wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 9:01pm: First home buyers would also renovate so it's a load of cods wallop to suggest otherwise first home buyers are generally cash strapped ... sure, they might improve it slowly over a 10 yr period, but by the time they finish it's already outdated how come I keep hearing about record numbers of people doing home renovations ? you seem confused ... you do understand what first home buyers are right? I'm sure a landlord is going to go to great expense to renovate a place and bring it up to modern day expectations just for the next tenant :D LOL

I managed two renovations for my landlords just last month ... both back in the rental pool. You keep dreaming, meanwhile I'll deal with reality