Australian Politics Forum - If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.
Reply #90 - Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:48pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:23pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 4:27pm:

What's wrong with limiting NG to brand new house and land packages ? You still get to invest in a property using those generous tax concessions whilst adding to the supply Wink

If people can't negative gear used housing how is that going to help increase the number of rental properties?

Last time i checked we aren't building enough new homes to meet demand.

Then you have the problem of shoddy workmanship in newer buildings try Google for Mascot Tower this is more widespread than reported.

I would prefer to invest in something that has been standing for over 50 years with no problems than take a chance on dodgy newer builds.

Only idiots with SFA real estate experience would touch those new builds. They are setting themselves up for financial ruin in the long term.

1. The land value is the 1st issue. These properties are far from the city and far from the coast and water. You can only reach these areas by tolled motorways which attempt to cut the time taken to get there.
2. The quality of the build will not be there. It’s all cheap and quick/high turnover/quantity over quality etc.
3. In many cases ... those selling these types of properties ARE the builders/working with the builders. That’s right! The real estate agents are involved as joint stakeholders in both building and selling.
4. Over the next 10 years...these properties will be lucky to rise by 100K in value.
5. Those “owners” by then realise they’ve essentially been done over. Many face being stuck with negative equity issues.
6. In some instances .. entire suburbs are now facing building issues. Look up the outer sydney suburb of Jordan Springs for a clue. The suburb is built on mud and is slowly sinking. People with mortgages can’t even renew their property insurance policies and they can’t sell either because no one wants a house that’s sinking nor can a bank lend money to anyone wishing to buy said house because it fails the crucial essential criterion of lending which is this : there MUST be a current insurance policy on the building before finance can be formally approved.

NOTE : I’ve often said this but I’ll say it again 👉 my posts are based on the Sydney property market.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53355
At my desk.

Re: If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.
Reply #91 - Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:48pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 9:44am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:24am:

They should limit NG to the first investment property only. After that you're on your own

Better still, limit it to brand new house packages and which will increase supply and stop them using that as a throwaway line in any of these debates. Wink

Of course unless they don't want to increase supply in order to keep the value of their investments high Wink

Do you think it is a good idea for the tax department to send people bankrupt by giving them a hug tax bill in a year in which they actually lose money?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.
Reply #92 - Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:00pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:38pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:29pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:27pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:23pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 4:27pm:

What's wrong with limiting NG to brand new house and land packages ? You still get to invest in a property using those generous tax concessions whilst adding to the supply Wink

If people can't negative gear used housing how is that going to help increase the number of rental properties?

Last time i checked we aren't building enough new homes to meet demand.

Then you have the problem of shoddy workmanship in newer buildings try Google for Mascot Tower this is more widespread than reported.

I would prefer to invest in something that has been standing for over 50 years with no problems than take a chance on dodgy newer builds.

The problem is not whether they are rental or owner occupier. The problem is we need to build more housing and that's what I am trying to address whereas people like Lisa have ulterior motives which is satisfying their own greed Sad

Last Nail

People are deemed greedy in your mind for buying homes to :

1. house themselves
2. rent out to others in the community
3. ultimately hand over such rentals in 2. to their children so as to ensure they are also housed.

👆 That’s not being greedy Last Nail. That’s being responsible by doing everything you possibly can to help others AND especially help your kids! Dear God...if YOU don’t help YOUR kids...who will?

you still don't address my issue of limiting NG to brand new house and land packages because you want your cake and eat it too simply because the old dumps are more valuable due to their location and once again prioritizing your greed over what is beneficial to the majority.

So me taking care of my children instead of your children is your revised definition of me being greedy.

When are YOU going to take responsibility for YOUR poor financial decisions which have affected YOUR children?

It’s WHY I posted 👇 earlier to you:

Quote:

So you did lose all your money and now you’re sitting there ... STILL renting and STILL whinging about those of us who DID invest in housing by looking at putting a roof over our heads AS WELL AS a roof over the heads of our children. In fact my 2 older kids as well as my step-daughter are property owners now BECAUSE we (as responsible forward thinking parents) did our due diligence and invested in HOUSING whilst they were just kids.

Tell you what Last Nail ... I think ALL your posts re housing are driven by jealousy and/or resentment because you listened to a fraudulent spruiker like Buffet and your misplaced trust in said fraud caused you to stumble and fail. I honestly don’t feel sorry for you because we’ve had close to 20 years of arguing back and forth over real estate and today everyone reading this topic now knows exactly where you’re at and why.

I just can’t believe you Last Nail! You could have EASILY paid off a house in all the years I’ve battled you online over the importance of home ownership. Right now I hope your kids have the good fortune to marry into families whose parents were not as reckless as you were. I don’t like seeing ANY child suffer because of slack arse parents.

Ok ... let’s try and move on knowing why you have your hell bent perspective against those who have NOT failed in securing home ownership and have NOT failed their children in helping them also.

But for that to happen you need to take responsibility for the fact that YOU have made poor choices regarding your finances and these have negatively impacted both your life and your children’s future.

Edit : For the record I’m not angry with you. I am however VERY frustrated with you. You should be in a completely different financial situation.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.
Reply #93 - Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:06pm

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:48pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 9:44am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:24am:

They should limit NG to the first investment property only. After that you're on your own

Better still, limit it to brand new house packages and which will increase supply and stop them using that as a throwaway line in any of these debates. Wink

Of course unless they don't want to increase supply in order to keep the value of their investments high Wink

Do you think it is a good idea for the tax department to send people bankrupt by giving them a huge tax bill in a year in which they actually lose money?

Last Nail .... Freediver has asked this question a few times. You keep avoiding it so I’ve highlighted it for you. What’s your answer??

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30923
Gender: male

Re: If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.
Reply #94 - Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:15pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:48pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 9:44am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:24am:

They should limit NG to the first investment property only. After that you're on your own

Better still, limit it to brand new house packages and which will increase supply and stop them using that as a throwaway line in any of these debates. Wink

Of course unless they don't want to increase supply in order to keep the value of their investments high Wink

Do you think it is a good idea for the tax department to send people bankrupt by giving them a huge tax bill in a year in which they actually lose money?

Last Nail .... Freediver has asked this question a few times. You keep avoiding it so I’ve highlighted it for you. What’s your answer??

I have no idea what he is talking about. Please provide an example.

Back to top

"If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region..." - Benjamin Netanyahu in 1995

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30923
Gender: male

Re: If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.
Reply #95 - Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:17pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:00pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:38pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:29pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:27pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:23pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 4:27pm:

What's wrong with limiting NG to brand new house and land packages ? You still get to invest in a property using those generous tax concessions whilst adding to the supply Wink

If people can't negative gear used housing how is that going to help increase the number of rental properties?

Last time i checked we aren't building enough new homes to meet demand.

Then you have the problem of shoddy workmanship in newer buildings try Google for Mascot Tower this is more widespread than reported.

I would prefer to invest in something that has been standing for over 50 years with no problems than take a chance on dodgy newer builds.

The problem is not whether they are rental or owner occupier. The problem is we need to build more housing and that's what I am trying to address whereas people like Lisa have ulterior motives which is satisfying their own greed Sad

Last Nail

People are deemed greedy in your mind for buying homes to :

1. house themselves
2. rent out to others in the community
3. ultimately hand over such rentals in 2. to their children so as to ensure they are also housed.

👆 That’s not being greedy Last Nail. That’s being responsible by doing everything you possibly can to help others AND especially help your kids! Dear God...if YOU don’t help YOUR kids...who will?

you still don't address my issue of limiting NG to brand new house and land packages because you want your cake and eat it too simply because the old dumps are more valuable due to their location and once again prioritizing your greed over what is beneficial to the majority.

So me taking care of my children instead of your children is your revised definition of me being greedy.

When are YOU going to take responsibility for YOUR poor financial decisions which have affected YOUR children?

It’s WHY I posted 👇 earlier to you:

Quote:

So you did lose all your money and now you’re sitting there ... STILL renting and STILL whinging about those of us who DID invest in housing by looking at putting a roof over our heads AS WELL AS a roof over the heads of our children. In fact my 2 older kids as well as my step-daughter are property owners now BECAUSE we (as responsible forward thinking parents) did our due diligence and invested in HOUSING whilst they were just kids.

Tell you what Last Nail ... I think ALL your posts re housing are driven by jealousy and/or resentment because you listened to a fraudulent spruiker like Buffet and your misplaced trust in said fraud caused you to stumble and fail. I honestly don’t feel sorry for you because we’ve had close to 20 years of arguing back and forth over real estate and today everyone reading this topic now knows exactly where you’re at and why.

I just can’t believe you Last Nail! You could have EASILY paid off a house in all the years I’ve battled you online over the importance of home ownership. Right now I hope your kids have the good fortune to marry into families whose parents were not as reckless as you were. I don’t like seeing ANY child suffer because of slack arse parents.

Ok ... let’s try and move on knowing why you have your hell bent perspective against those who have NOT failed in securing home ownership and have NOT failed their children in helping them also.

But for that to happen you need to take responsibility for the fact that YOU have made poor choices regarding your finances and these have negatively impacted both your life and your children’s future.

Edit : For the record I’m not angry with you. I am however VERY frustrated with you. You should be in a completely different financial situation.

do you keep dossiers on everyone do you Lisa ?? You are talking about stuff I only have vague recollections of and is of no relevance to the topic here. You need to get a life Cheesy

LOL

Back to top

"If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region..." - Benjamin Netanyahu in 1995

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30923
Gender: male

Re: If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.
Reply #96 - Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:23pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:48pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 5:23pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 4:27pm:

What's wrong with limiting NG to brand new house and land packages ? You still get to invest in a property using those generous tax concessions whilst adding to the supply Wink

If people can't negative gear used housing how is that going to help increase the number of rental properties?

Last time i checked we aren't building enough new homes to meet demand.

Then you have the problem of shoddy workmanship in newer buildings try Google for Mascot Tower this is more widespread than reported.

I would prefer to invest in something that has been standing for over 50 years with no problems than take a chance on dodgy newer builds.

Only idiots with SFA real estate experience would touch those new builds. They are setting themselves up for financial ruin in the long term.

1. The land value is the 1st issue. These properties are far from the city and far from the coast and water. You can only reach these areas by tolled motorways which attempt to cut the time taken to get there.
2. The quality of the build will not be there. It’s all cheap and quick/high turnover/quantity over quality etc.
3. In many cases ... those selling these types of properties ARE the builders/working with the builders. That’s right! The real estate agents are involved as joint stakeholders in both building and selling.
4. Over the next 10 years...these properties will be lucky to rise by 100K in value.
5. Those “owners” by then realise they’ve essentially been done over. Many face being stuck with negative equity issues.
6. In some instances .. entire suburbs are now facing building issues. Look up the outer sydney suburb of Jordan Springs for a clue. The suburb is built on mud and is slowly sinking. People with mortgages can’t even renew their property insurance policies and they can’t sell either because no one wants a house that’s sinking nor can a bank lend money to anyone wishing to buy said house because it fails the crucial essential criterion of lending which is this : there MUST be a current insurance policy on the building before finance can be formally approved.

NOTE : I’ve often said this but I’ll say it again 👉 my posts are based on the Sydney property market.

Now we get to the bottom of it. You want to prioritize your greed over someone who just wants ONE house to live in. Not only that you want to minimize your risk with a whole lot of corporate welfare thrown in with the mix that owner occupiers never ever get. If houses are not for people to live in then what are they for ?? In Australia they are for greedy people !!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:46pm by Sir lastnail »

"If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region..." - Benjamin Netanyahu in 1995

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53355
At my desk.

Re: If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.
Reply #97 - Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:26pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:15pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:48pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 9:44am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:24am:

They should limit NG to the first investment property only. After that you're on your own

Better still, limit it to brand new house packages and which will increase supply and stop them using that as a throwaway line in any of these debates. Wink

Of course unless they don't want to increase supply in order to keep the value of their investments high Wink

Do you think it is a good idea for the tax department to send people bankrupt by giving them a huge tax bill in a year in which they actually lose money?

Last Nail .... Freediver has asked this question a few times. You keep avoiding it so I’ve highlighted it for you. What’s your answer??

I have no idea what he is talking about. Please provide an example.

It's really not that complicated. But here's an example. You loose $10,000 over the financial year. Then the ATO sends you a $20,000 tax bill. You cannot pay it. You have to declare bankruptcy. Does that sound right to you? Or do you need me to fetch the crayons?

Do you think it is a good idea for the tax department to send people bankrupt by giving them a hug tax bill in a year in which they actually lose money?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30923
Gender: male

Re: If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.
Reply #98 - Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:38pm

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:26pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:15pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 7:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 6:48pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 9:44am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:24am:

They should limit NG to the first investment property only. After that you're on your own

Better still, limit it to brand new house packages and which will increase supply and stop them using that as a throwaway line in any of these debates. Wink

Of course unless they don't want to increase supply in order to keep the value of their investments high Wink

Do you think it is a good idea for the tax department to send people bankrupt by giving them a huge tax bill in a year in which they actually lose money?

Last Nail .... Freediver has asked this question a few times. You keep avoiding it so I’ve highlighted it for you. What’s your answer??

I have no idea what he is talking about. Please provide an example.

It's really not that complicated. But here's an example. You loose $10,000 over the financial year. Then the ATO sends you a $20,000 tax bill. You cannot pay it. You have to declare bankruptcy. Does that sound right to you? Or do you need me to fetch the crayons?

Do you think it is a good idea for the tax department to send people bankrupt by giving them a hug tax bill in a year in which they actually lose money?

Then why are you taking on so much risk then ?? No one is twisting your arm but you want to offload your risk onto other tax payers and then benefit from the capital gains. What do they say. Privatize the gains and socialize the losses. Cheesy

LOL

Back to top

"If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region..." - Benjamin Netanyahu in 1995

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53355
At my desk.

Re: If they are hell bent on keeping negative gearing.
Reply #99 - Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:45pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2023 at 8:38pm: