Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 5
th, 2010 at 1:42pm:
Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 5
th, 2010 at 12:14pm:
Amadd .. negative gearing is A HIGH RISK VENTURE OK???
I've been doing it for 10 yrs now.
Don't believe the stories you hear .. about how people make money etc .. it's all BS!
Oh and the property in question .. will now be lived in .. it won't be ever be sold .. because of the CGT factor.
Over all .. it's been a wasted exercise (even though the property has doubled in value over the past decade because it's in a waterside suburb).
Believe you me .. stay away from negative gearing .. and the myth that you can make $$$.
Regards
Lisa
I have no doubt that your own account is true.
But then if there is so much risk in negative gearing then don't you think that this is another reason why the Government should abolish it and instead give tax concessions to first home owners ?
If the Government does do that.....where are the first home owners going to live?????
It 'might' work, for a while, while all the investor/landlords sell off their investment properties.....but what about AFTER that....
As it stands now, people rent houses/units (which are usually negative geared investment properties) while they save the deposit for their first home.....so as each group get the deposit and buy, the next group move in....
If all those investment properties are bought by owner-occupiers, where do the new couples live while saving the deposit????
The sad fact is, the number of homes built is not keeping pace with demand, and neither is the infrastructure, like public transport and employment....
Who would be willing to buy a house in an area of no jobs and no public transport and have to do a 2 or 3 (or more) hour commute to work????