Australian Politics Forum - I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29706
Gender: male

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #210 - Dec 16^th, 2018 at 9:27pm

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 3:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 11:42am:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 11:24am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:47am:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:02am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 9:52am:

Bam wrote on Dec 15^th, 2018 at 6:00pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 12^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2018 at 9:47pm:

Quote:

A brand new apartment is like a brand new car. As soon as it is used, it loses value.

Utter crap. Houses go up in value. Cars go down.

A simplistic argument that shows you don't know much about the real estate market.

If two identical dwellings are on the market, built at the same time and in the same development, but one has never been lived in and one has some modest wear and tear from being tenanted for a couple of years, would a buyer pay exactly the same price for both? Or would they be willing to pay a premium for the one that's still in as-new condition or expect a lower price for the lived-in property?

What would happen: the property in better condition would command a higher price. Depending on the market and the property, the price premium could easily be worth more than the rent in some cases. It won't happen all the time, but it is foolish to assert that it won't happen.

Again, what drives this? Not negative gearing, but the tax break that encourages unproductive house flipping: the CGT discount.

It is foolish to assert that people would gamble on making more money by deliberately forgoing rental income on their investment property.

It is also foolish to make an analogy between cars and investment properties, even if you can dream up some scenario where the analogy might hold.

You still haven't explained why a significant proportion of investor-owned dwellings don't have tenants in them. Handwaving doesn't make the facts go away. Nearly 20% of investor-owned housing in some areas is empty.

Nearly 20 per cent of Melbourne’s investor-owned homes empty (9/12/15)

Australia’s ghost suburbs a ‘national scandal’ (29/3/16)

One in nine Australian dwellings were empty on census night (17/7/17)

Pretty vacant: 20,000 properties empty across inner Melbourne (10/11/17)

They are probably landbanked by some foreign chinese investor. They are not interested in putting tenants in them.

Do the Chinese have a different view on making money to everyone else?

Yes they are using australian property as a bank for their money.

Can you explain why they would be willing to forgo rental income? Is it because they are stupid? Or just because they haven't thought about what they are saying? Do the Chinese not understand interest, or return on investment?

There could be all sorts of reasons, They likely can not negative gear an Australian tax that they don't pay anyway. There may be problems with foreign earnings in China, maybe they do not want their government to know about what they are doing and maybe they just do not know.

I meant real reasons, not "let's substitute a lazy imagination for a rational argument" type reasons.

Do you really think Chinese people do not realise you can earn rent on properties you own?

Quote:

maybe you should ask them because that's exactly what they were and are probably still doing

You have not presented any evidence at all for this.

Also, how exactly do Chinese investors take advantage of negative gearing under Australian tax laws?

Why do they care about negative gearing when they can buy the property outright with cash ? They are only interested in somewhere to park their money away from mainland china with the prospect of a capital gain at the end of it. Australia is seen as a safe haven to invest their money away from china.

You're making the mistake that a china-man from mainland china is going to have the same investment objectives as an aussie does. There have been many examples of land banked properties owned by foreigners that had no tenants in them for years and years, something which is obviously news to you.

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47443
At my desk.

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #211 - Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:22pm

Quote:

Why do they care about negative gearing when they can buy the property outright with cash ? They are only interested in somewhere to park their money away from mainland china with the prospect of a capital gain at the end of it.

So you are literally speaking on behalf of Chinese investors, and you are saying they don't care about getting rental income from their investment properties?

Would you say that these feats of logic are typical from those who oppose negative gearing?

Quote:

You're making the mistake that a china-man from mainland china is going to have the same investment objectives as an aussie does. There have been many examples of land banked properties owned by foreigners that had no tenants in them for years and years, something which is obviously news to you.

Sure, because they were under water at high tide. Do you have any evidence that Chinese investors are not motivated by profit, to the extent they would simply forgo rental income for no apparent reason?

Bam wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 6:24am:

Quote:

You still haven't explained why a significant proportion of investor-owned dwellings don't have tenants in them.

Sorry, I did not think I would have to. It's similar to the job market. You need a significant amount of job seekers and available jobs for the job market to function properly. Likewise you need a significant amount of vacant rentals as well as people looking to rent for the rental market to function properly. The figure is typically put at around 5%.

On top of that the building industry is highly cyclical and speculative, particularly commercial rentals in the city. So you get short term fluctuations on top of that - far more so than the job market.

So there is your explanation.

Now, do you have any actual evidence that people are deliberately choosing to forgo rental income because of tax law? Or does your entire argument rest on your inability to explain a few scary looking statistics?

A nominal 5% vacancy rate is not the same thing as the significantly higher figure that is the proportion of investor-owned housing that isn't even on the rental market. You would know this if you had read the articles I linked.

Congratulations. You finished the first sentence. Let me know when you finish reading the entire post. If you can quote the whole thing, you should be able to read it.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57162
Here
Gender: male

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #212 - Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:59pm

stunspore wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:

stunspore wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 7:45pm:

Which part is illegal?

You think it legal to fake tenancy in order to embezzle the tax office ?

? If rent was paid, but chosen not to occupy the property doesn't make it illegal. Only illegal as far as i am aware, if deliberately making rent well below market rates.

You inferred in no way that rent was paid which would be ridiculous so now we have 2 people making a loss and both losses are much greater than any possible tax advantage.

They both would be better off in every respect had they just done nothing.

Why would someone rent a property to leave vacant so that a very small amount of tax advantage could be gained. The tax advantage is 30% typically of the difference between rent received and the interest paid.

It typically comes out at $1,000 to $2,000. or there about. Yet the claim is that someone is willing to pay something like $13,000 + in rent so someone else has this advantage. Nobody is that dumb - nobody.

Back to top

IP Logged

stunspore Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5089 Gender:	Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing Reply #213 - Dec 17^th, 2018 at 8:47pm It's cool that you choose to disbelieve. Doesn't make it untrue though.
Back to top	IP Logged

crocodile Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6682 Gender:	Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing Reply #214 - Dec 17^th, 2018 at 9:05pm stunspore wrote on Dec 17^th, 2018 at 8:47pm: It's cool that you choose to disbelieve. Doesn't make it untrue though. Maybe not, but it is unfathomably stupid with absolutely zero benefit attached.
Back to top	Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes. IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29706
Gender: male

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #215 - Dec 17^th, 2018 at 9:45pm

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Quote:

Why do they care about negative gearing when they can buy the property outright with cash ? They are only interested in somewhere to park their money away from mainland china with the prospect of a capital gain at the end of it.

So you are literally speaking on behalf of Chinese investors, and you are saying they don't care about getting rental income from their investment properties?

Would you say that these feats of logic are typical from those who oppose negative gearing?

Quote:

You're making the mistake that a china-man from mainland china is going to have the same investment objectives as an aussie does. There have been many examples of land banked properties owned by foreigners that had no tenants in them for years and years, something which is obviously news to you.

Sure, because they were under water at high tide. Do you have any evidence that Chinese investors are not motivated by profit, to the extent they would simply forgo rental income for no apparent reason?

Bam wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 6:24am:

Quote:

You still haven't explained why a significant proportion of investor-owned dwellings don't have tenants in them.

Sorry, I did not think I would have to. It's similar to the job market. You need a significant amount of job seekers and available jobs for the job market to function properly. Likewise you need a significant amount of vacant rentals as well as people looking to rent for the rental market to function properly. The figure is typically put at around 5%.

On top of that the building industry is highly cyclical and speculative, particularly commercial rentals in the city. So you get short term fluctuations on top of that - far more so than the job market.

So there is your explanation.

Now, do you have any actual evidence that people are deliberately choosing to forgo rental income because of tax law? Or does your entire argument rest on your inability to explain a few scary looking statistics?

A nominal 5% vacancy rate is not the same thing as the significantly higher figure that is the proportion of investor-owned housing that isn't even on the rental market. You would know this if you had read the articles I linked.

Congratulations. You finished the first sentence. Let me know when you finish reading the entire post. If you can quote the whole thing, you should be able to read it.

They are interested in the capital gains and not the 2% yields they get from rentals to people who could easily trash the joint and cause problems. It's the poor aussies that have to borrow the lot that desperately need the rental income and not the cashed up chinese. They just buy the joint outright with cash as though it is a bank Wink

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47443
At my desk.

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #216 - Dec 18^th, 2018 at 8:05pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 17^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Quote:

Why do they care about negative gearing when they can buy the property outright with cash ? They are only interested in somewhere to park their money away from mainland china with the prospect of a capital gain at the end of it.

So you are literally speaking on behalf of Chinese investors, and you are saying they don't care about getting rental income from their investment properties?

Would you say that these feats of logic are typical from those who oppose negative gearing?

Quote:

You're making the mistake that a china-man from mainland china is going to have the same investment objectives as an aussie does. There have been many examples of land banked properties owned by foreigners that had no tenants in them for years and years, something which is obviously news to you.

Sure, because they were under water at high tide. Do you have any evidence that Chinese investors are not motivated by profit, to the extent they would simply forgo rental income for no apparent reason?

Bam wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 6:24am:

Quote:

You still haven't explained why a significant proportion of investor-owned dwellings don't have tenants in them.

Sorry, I did not think I would have to. It's similar to the job market. You need a significant amount of job seekers and available jobs for the job market to function properly. Likewise you need a significant amount of vacant rentals as well as people looking to rent for the rental market to function properly. The figure is typically put at around 5%.

On top of that the building industry is highly cyclical and speculative, particularly commercial rentals in the city. So you get short term fluctuations on top of that - far more so than the job market.

So there is your explanation.

Now, do you have any actual evidence that people are deliberately choosing to forgo rental income because of tax law? Or does your entire argument rest on your inability to explain a few scary looking statistics?

A nominal 5% vacancy rate is not the same thing as the significantly higher figure that is the proportion of investor-owned housing that isn't even on the rental market. You would know this if you had read the articles I linked.

Congratulations. You finished the first sentence. Let me know when you finish reading the entire post. If you can quote the whole thing, you should be able to read it.

They are interested in the capital gains and not the 2% yields they get from rentals to people who could easily trash the joint and cause problems. It's the poor aussies that have to borrow the lot that desperately need the rental income and not the cashed up chinese. They just buy the joint outright with cash as though it is a bank Wink

So Chinese are not interested in an extra 2% return on their investment? Do you have any evidence they are actually as stupid as you suggest?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57162
Here
Gender: male

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #217 - Dec 18^th, 2018 at 8:43pm

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 17^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Quote:

Why do they care about negative gearing when they can buy the property outright with cash ? They are only interested in somewhere to park their money away from mainland china with the prospect of a capital gain at the end of it.

So you are literally speaking on behalf of Chinese investors, and you are saying they don't care about getting rental income from their investment properties?

Would you say that these feats of logic are typical from those who oppose negative gearing?

Quote:

You're making the mistake that a china-man from mainland china is going to have the same investment objectives as an aussie does. There have been many examples of land banked properties owned by foreigners that had no tenants in them for years and years, something which is obviously news to you.

Sure, because they were under water at high tide. Do you have any evidence that Chinese investors are not motivated by profit, to the extent they would simply forgo rental income for no apparent reason?

Bam wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 6:24am:

Quote:

You still haven't explained why a significant proportion of investor-owned dwellings don't have tenants in them.

Sorry, I did not think I would have to. It's similar to the job market. You need a significant amount of job seekers and available jobs for the job market to function properly. Likewise you need a significant amount of vacant rentals as well as people looking to rent for the rental market to function properly. The figure is typically put at around 5%.

On top of that the building industry is highly cyclical and speculative, particularly commercial rentals in the city. So you get short term fluctuations on top of that - far more so than the job market.

So there is your explanation.

Now, do you have any actual evidence that people are deliberately choosing to forgo rental income because of tax law? Or does your entire argument rest on your inability to explain a few scary looking statistics?

A nominal 5% vacancy rate is not the same thing as the significantly higher figure that is the proportion of investor-owned housing that isn't even on the rental market. You would know this if you had read the articles I linked.

Congratulations. You finished the first sentence. Let me know when you finish reading the entire post. If you can quote the whole thing, you should be able to read it.

They are interested in the capital gains and not the 2% yields they get from rentals to people who could easily trash the joint and cause problems. It's the poor aussies that have to borrow the lot that desperately need the rental income and not the cashed up chinese. They just buy the joint outright with cash as though it is a bank Wink

So Chinese are not interested in an extra 2% return on their investment? Do you have any evidence they are actually as stupid as you suggest?

You think that maybe they do not qualify ? Remember that they very often bring the money from their Chinese loan ? I doubt they can offset this against the Australian tax system.

Back to top

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6682
Gender: male

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #218 - Dec 18^th, 2018 at 8:50pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18^th, 2018 at 8:43pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 17^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Quote:

Why do they care about negative gearing when they can buy the property outright with cash ? They are only interested in somewhere to park their money away from mainland china with the prospect of a capital gain at the end of it.

So you are literally speaking on behalf of Chinese investors, and you are saying they don't care about getting rental income from their investment properties?

Would you say that these feats of logic are typical from those who oppose negative gearing?

Quote:

You're making the mistake that a china-man from mainland china is going to have the same investment objectives as an aussie does. There have been many examples of land banked properties owned by foreigners that had no tenants in them for years and years, something which is obviously news to you.

Sure, because they were under water at high tide. Do you have any evidence that Chinese investors are not motivated by profit, to the extent they would simply forgo rental income for no apparent reason?

Bam wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 6:24am:

Quote:

You still haven't explained why a significant proportion of investor-owned dwellings don't have tenants in them.

Sorry, I did not think I would have to. It's similar to the job market. You need a significant amount of job seekers and available jobs for the job market to function properly. Likewise you need a significant amount of vacant rentals as well as people looking to rent for the rental market to function properly. The figure is typically put at around 5%.

On top of that the building industry is highly cyclical and speculative, particularly commercial rentals in the city. So you get short term fluctuations on top of that - far more so than the job market.

So there is your explanation.

Now, do you have any actual evidence that people are deliberately choosing to forgo rental income because of tax law? Or does your entire argument rest on your inability to explain a few scary looking statistics?

A nominal 5% vacancy rate is not the same thing as the significantly higher figure that is the proportion of investor-owned housing that isn't even on the rental market. You would know this if you had read the articles I linked.

Congratulations. You finished the first sentence. Let me know when you finish reading the entire post. If you can quote the whole thing, you should be able to read it.

They are interested in the capital gains and not the 2% yields they get from rentals to people who could easily trash the joint and cause problems. It's the poor aussies that have to borrow the lot that desperately need the rental income and not the cashed up chinese. They just buy the joint outright with cash as though it is a bank Wink

So Chinese are not interested in an extra 2% return on their investment? Do you have any evidence they are actually as stupid as you suggest?

You think that maybe they do not qualify ? Remember that they very often bring the money from their Chinese loan ? I doubt they can offset this against the Australian tax system.

They don't receive the CGT discount either.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47443
At my desk.

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #219 - Dec 18^th, 2018 at 9:54pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18^th, 2018 at 8:43pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 17^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Quote:

Why do they care about negative gearing when they can buy the property outright with cash ? They are only interested in somewhere to park their money away from mainland china with the prospect of a capital gain at the end of it.

So you are literally speaking on behalf of Chinese investors, and you are saying they don't care about getting rental income from their investment properties?

Would you say that these feats of logic are typical from those who oppose negative gearing?

Quote:

You're making the mistake that a china-man from mainland china is going to have the same investment objectives as an aussie does. There have been many examples of land banked properties owned by foreigners that had no tenants in them for years and years, something which is obviously news to you.

Sure, because they were under water at high tide. Do you have any evidence that Chinese investors are not motivated by profit, to the extent they would simply forgo rental income for no apparent reason?

Bam wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 6:24am:

Quote:

You still haven't explained why a significant proportion of investor-owned dwellings don't have tenants in them.

Sorry, I did not think I would have to. It's similar to the job market. You need a significant amount of job seekers and available jobs for the job market to function properly. Likewise you need a significant amount of vacant rentals as well as people looking to rent for the rental market to function properly. The figure is typically put at around 5%.

On top of that the building industry is highly cyclical and speculative, particularly commercial rentals in the city. So you get short term fluctuations on top of that - far more so than the job market.

So there is your explanation.

Now, do you have any actual evidence that people are deliberately choosing to forgo rental income because of tax law? Or does your entire argument rest on your inability to explain a few scary looking statistics?

A nominal 5% vacancy rate is not the same thing as the significantly higher figure that is the proportion of investor-owned housing that isn't even on the rental market. You would know this if you had read the articles I linked.

Congratulations. You finished the first sentence. Let me know when you finish reading the entire post. If you can quote the whole thing, you should be able to read it.

They are interested in the capital gains and not the 2% yields they get from rentals to people who could easily trash the joint and cause problems. It's the poor aussies that have to borrow the lot that desperately need the rental income and not the cashed up chinese. They just buy the joint outright with cash as though it is a bank Wink

So Chinese are not interested in an extra 2% return on their investment? Do you have any evidence they are actually as stupid as you suggest?

You think that maybe they do not qualify ? Remember that they very often bring the money from their Chinese loan ? I doubt they can offset this against the Australian tax system.

Qualify for what? Rental income?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 95433 Melbourne Gender:	Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing Reply #220 - Dec 18^th, 2018 at 10:02pm FD, you're missing the main point and I don't know if it's deliberate? You can't lose money on shares and then claim it as a tax deduction on your wages. Deny this point!
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29706
Gender: male

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #221 - Dec 18^th, 2018 at 10:05pm

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 17^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Quote:

Why do they care about negative gearing when they can buy the property outright with cash ? They are only interested in somewhere to park their money away from mainland china with the prospect of a capital gain at the end of it.

So you are literally speaking on behalf of Chinese investors, and you are saying they don't care about getting rental income from their investment properties?

Would you say that these feats of logic are typical from those who oppose negative gearing?

Quote:

You're making the mistake that a china-man from mainland china is going to have the same investment objectives as an aussie does. There have been many examples of land banked properties owned by foreigners that had no tenants in them for years and years, something which is obviously news to you.

Sure, because they were under water at high tide. Do you have any evidence that Chinese investors are not motivated by profit, to the extent they would simply forgo rental income for no apparent reason?

Bam wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 6:24am:

Quote:

You still haven't explained why a significant proportion of investor-owned dwellings don't have tenants in them.

Sorry, I did not think I would have to. It's similar to the job market. You need a significant amount of job seekers and available jobs for the job market to function properly. Likewise you need a significant amount of vacant rentals as well as people looking to rent for the rental market to function properly. The figure is typically put at around 5%.

On top of that the building industry is highly cyclical and speculative, particularly commercial rentals in the city. So you get short term fluctuations on top of that - far more so than the job market.

So there is your explanation.

Now, do you have any actual evidence that people are deliberately choosing to forgo rental income because of tax law? Or does your entire argument rest on your inability to explain a few scary looking statistics?

A nominal 5% vacancy rate is not the same thing as the significantly higher figure that is the proportion of investor-owned housing that isn't even on the rental market. You would know this if you had read the articles I linked.

Congratulations. You finished the first sentence. Let me know when you finish reading the entire post. If you can quote the whole thing, you should be able to read it.

They are interested in the capital gains and not the 2% yields they get from rentals to people who could easily trash the joint and cause problems. It's the poor aussies that have to borrow the lot that desperately need the rental income and not the cashed up chinese. They just buy the joint outright with cash as though it is a bank Wink

So Chinese are not interested in an extra 2% return on their investment? Do you have any evidence they are actually as stupid as you suggest?

So explain why there were and probably still are so many foreign chinese owned properties that remain vacant here ?

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47443
At my desk.

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #222 - Dec 18^th, 2018 at 10:09pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 18^th, 2018 at 10:05pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 17^th, 2018 at 9:45pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Quote:

Why do they care about negative gearing when they can buy the property outright with cash ? They are only interested in somewhere to park their money away from mainland china with the prospect of a capital gain at the end of it.

So you are literally speaking on behalf of Chinese investors, and you are saying they don't care about getting rental income from their investment properties?

Would you say that these feats of logic are typical from those who oppose negative gearing?

Quote:

You're making the mistake that a china-man from mainland china is going to have the same investment objectives as an aussie does. There have been many examples of land banked properties owned by foreigners that had no tenants in them for years and years, something which is obviously news to you.

Sure, because they were under water at high tide. Do you have any evidence that Chinese investors are not motivated by profit, to the extent they would simply forgo rental income for no apparent reason?

Bam wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 8:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 6:24am:

Quote:

You still haven't explained why a significant proportion of investor-owned dwellings don't have tenants in them.

Sorry, I did not think I would have to. It's similar to the job market. You need a significant amount of job seekers and available jobs for the job market to function properly. Likewise you need a significant amount of vacant rentals as well as people looking to rent for the rental market to function properly. The figure is typically put at around 5%.

On top of that the building industry is highly cyclical and speculative, particularly commercial rentals in the city. So you get short term fluctuations on top of that - far more so than the job market.

So there is your explanation.

Now, do you have any actual evidence that people are deliberately choosing to forgo rental income because of tax law? Or does your entire argument rest on your inability to explain a few scary looking statistics?

A nominal 5% vacancy rate is not the same thing as the significantly higher figure that is the proportion of investor-owned housing that isn't even on the rental market. You would know this if you had read the articles I linked.

Congratulations. You finished the first sentence. Let me know when you finish reading the entire post. If you can quote the whole thing, you should be able to read it.

They are interested in the capital gains and not the 2% yields they get from rentals to people who could easily trash the joint and cause problems. It's the poor aussies that have to borrow the lot that desperately need the rental income and not the cashed up chinese. They just buy the joint outright with cash as though it is a bank Wink

So Chinese are not interested in an extra 2% return on their investment? Do you have any evidence they are actually as stupid as you suggest?

So explain why there were and probably still are so many foreign chinese owned properties that remain vacant here ?

For the same reason there are so many locally owned vacant ones - it's just business as usual.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29706
Gender: male

Re: I can't wait for Labor to abolish negative gearing
Reply #223 - Dec 18^th, 2018 at 10:14pm

freediver wrote on Dec 18^th, 2018 at 10:09pm: