The Politics Thread 2018

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear »

T_R wrote: November 9, 2018, 10:07 pm
gangrenous wrote: November 9, 2018, 9:17 pm You’re both right on the basics.

Except you know what doesn’t help? Having investors in the mix too.

Characterising it as people being upset they can’t buy in Mosman is lazy and offensive.

No comments on the plot hole in your previous narrative either Zaius?
I guess it's offensive if you try really, really hard to be offended. Which I think you are a little prone to doing.

The fact is, there's a constant dialogue about how house prices are 'impossible' and 'out of reach' of young people. What we're forgetting is that young families have ALWAYS had to move out to the suburbs to build a house. In the 40's, my grandparents were laughed at for building 'out in the country' in Bankstown. My parents built the first house in the middle of a paddock in Rivett 30 years later, and 30 years after that my brother bought his first place in some windswept floodplain just north of Tharwa. Welcome to young adulthood.

The inner city is expensive, and tax changes will make no difference to that. Why focus on investors? As GE said, whack on an inheritance tax, or if you prefer stop exempting the family home from capital gains. Either will kick the housing market into the gutter, and your shiftless Arts students friends can all buy a falling down terrace in Newtown again.

As an aside, I don't really get that worked up on the negative gearing conversation. I own a few houses here and there, and the one thing they have in common is that they are all positively geared. I invest to make money, not lose it. If Shorten makes his changes, I 100% assure you that rents will go up on the spot....frankly, I expect to do well out of it.
this so much this...

I have yet to meet a person who have explained there circumstances to a situation where I think it’s the housing market keeping them from buying not:-
- there expectations
- there own nervousness about the direction of the market
- there balls being able to borrow and bid in a certain range
- there employment situation

Their not there, but you get my drift.

Fundamentally the policy to me just seems like a poor attempt at a tax grab.

Currently home owners do have a massive advantage on investors in that we don’t pay land tax and our capital gain if applicable is completely tax free. If your goal was to give home owners more of a leg up you would make the interest on ur home deductible ala the us. That said though the govt wouldn’t do it because they want tax revenue and fundamentally its bad tax policy to make a personal non business expense deductible.

Just as it is a bad tax policy to make a business expense non deductible.
User avatar
Dr Zaius
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22869
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Dr Zaius »

Hahaha, you are sensitive gangrenous! Bless your cotton socks.

You know what is offensive? A party that pushes a policy that fell over a couple of decades ago when implemented, that won't achieve what is designed to, but will have a detrimental effect on low income earners looking to rent, and mum and dad investors.

This is a mean spirited, tall poppy syndrome driven policy designed to again take a pot shot at those that show the initiative and discipline to self fund their retirement. And this is why we are screwed. The liberals are under the thumb of some right wing lunatics, and Labor can be relied upon to trot out this type of BS.
User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16467
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Schifty »

T_R wrote: November 9, 2018, 9:07 pm
Dr Zaius wrote:The problem is that there is roughly the same number of dwellings in desirable areas as there were 20 years ago, with significantly more people wanting them. Supply and demand. Penalising investors won't change that. Canning negative gearing doesn't mean some millennial can waltz in and pick up a deal in Mosmon. Sydney and Melbourne are global cities now, housing in the inner city will always be desirable and expensive.
Yup. Welcome to 2018.

And all the tax policy in the world won't change it.
Bulldoze and build up!

Let's Hong Kong the **** out of those beachside mcmansion suburbs!
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gerg »

I don't have a huge issue with negative gearing but I think there needs to be a limit. Does Senator O'Sullivan really need 30 properties?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous »

T_R wrote: November 9, 2018, 10:07 pm The fact is, there's a constant dialogue about how house prices are 'impossible' and 'out of reach' of young people. What we're forgetting is that young families have ALWAYS had to move out to the suburbs to build a house. In the 40's, my grandparents were laughed at for building 'out in the country' in Bankstown. My parents built the first house in the middle of a paddock in Rivett 30 years later, and 30 years after that my brother bought his first place in some windswept floodplain just north of Tharwa. Welcome to young adulthood.

The inner city is expensive, and tax changes will make no difference to that. Why focus on investors? As GE said, whack on an inheritance tax, or if you prefer stop exempting the family home from capital gains. Either will kick the housing market into the gutter, and your shiftless Arts students friends can all buy a falling down terrace in Newtown again.
That's nice, what's all that? 40 mins into town in the worst case? Positively lovely commute in Sydney these days. How many bedrooms were their places? How many years did they need to save for those deposits? How much did house prices rise over the period they were saving?

Dr Zaius wrote: November 10, 2018, 7:12 am Hahaha, you are sensitive gangrenous! Bless your cotton socks.
No need to say a prayer for any of my socks thanks. I meant that it was intellectually offensive in that it was a stupid point, just being polite :)

Dr Zaius wrote: November 10, 2018, 7:12 am You know what is offensive? A party that pushes a policy that fell over a couple of decades ago when implemented, that won't achieve what is designed to, but will have a detrimental effect on low income earners looking to rent, and mum and dad investors.
I'd say that is a long way from certain, and given your previous logically flawed rationales I'm not sure you're really thinking this whole area through well. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-06/ ... ng/6431100


Dr Zaius wrote: November 10, 2018, 7:12 am This is a mean spirited, tall poppy syndrome driven policy designed to again take a pot shot at those that show the initiative and discipline to self fund their retirement. And this is why we are screwed. The liberals are under the thumb of some right wing lunatics, and Labor can be relied upon to trot out this type of BS.
Oh cry me a river :roflmao those poor tall poppies with the investment properties who have all those other investment opportunities we've been talking about will have to fund their comfortable retirements through other means than limiting the ability of their fellow Australians to invest in their own house and fund their own retirement. These battlers could even consider investing in new housing supply instead maybe? Wouldn't that be radical...

But of course it's all in gangers' head about investors driving up prices and destabilising the market right? I dunno lets see what the Reserve Bank had to say about it a few years ago:
Reserve Bank of Australia in 2015 financial stability review wrote: The composition of new mortgage finance remains skewed to investors, however, particularly in the largest cities. Ongoing strong speculative demand would tend to amplify the run-up in housing prices and increase the risk that prices in at least some regions might fall significantly later on.
papabear can show disdain for younger people being anxious about buying into an inflated market. But it's a legitimately tough spot - don't buy in and growth continues for a few years and you end up another 25% behind. Buy in and the market collapses and you're seriously ****. We've seen unsustainable growth and that's made life very difficult for some, and been a blissful boon for others. Sensible policy should have kept growth in more sustainable band.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R »

" But it's a legitimately tough spot - don't buy in and growth continues for a few years and you end up another 25% behind. Buy in and the market collapses and you're seriously ****. "

So the same as any other investment, then?

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous »

Yeah, just the same. Now if you’ll just excuse me my dinner is being served in the kitchen of my CBA shares.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote: November 10, 2018, 4:48 pm Yeah, just the same. Now if you’ll just excuse me my dinner is being served in the kitchen of my CBA shares.
Cute, but ignores the obvious point. You yourself have framed the purchase of the house in terms of an investment (what do you care if the house you live in 'drops' 25% - you're not going to sell it, and if you do you'll be buying in an equally depressed market).

You really have to make your mind up about what you're worked up over.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote: November 10, 2018, 12:08 pm That's nice, what's all that? 40 mins into town in the worst case? Positively lovely commute in Sydney these days. How many bedrooms were their places? How many years did they need to save for those deposits? How much did house prices rise over the period they were saving?
Oh, and while you're in full blown victim mode, just pause for a second.

No, my parents moved to Canberra precisely because they couldn't afford to buy in Sydney in an area that they liked. The same option is available to young people today.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous »

Difficulty refinancing/upgrading with negative equity.

What do your parents do for jobs? Not everyone has a job to go to in Canberra.
User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3457
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman »

The Keating Negative Gearing change 'disaster' was actually debunked. Was a perfect storm of a ton of other underlying factors. Should have held his nerve.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

Get tested for VIKING CLAP today. https://www.health.act.gov.au/hospitals ... lth-centre.
User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3457
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman »

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-06/ ... ng/6431100

Really good read.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

Get tested for VIKING CLAP today. https://www.health.act.gov.au/hospitals ... lth-centre.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote: November 10, 2018, 5:19 pm Difficulty refinancing/upgrading with negative equity.

What do your parents do for jobs? Not everyone has a job to go to in Canberra.
Yeah, I think you're getting nitpicky. Most people don't sell their family homes very often. The fact is that you phrased the argument in terms of an investment, and then mocked me for doing the same.

My parents had a fairly transferable job. The point was not that they moved to Canberra, it was that they were prepared to move for the purposes of buying a house.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 41998
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Botman »

My only contribution to this is my wife and i loved living in Sydney
Specifically Randwick - Coogee, we rented there for a few years at a steep price... well worth it, the lifestyle was great

But we couldnt afford to buy there, at least not a place big enough to have a family in. When my wife got offered a job in Canberra we thought about staying in Sydney, grinding, sacrificing holiday's and lifestyle to pump money into savings and eventually we'd be able to afford to buy in a suburb that wasnt going to be in the eastern suburbs but would have been fine... but we didnt want to do that, we could afford to holiday, have a good time, and buy a house in Canberra in suburbs we like, so we jumped at it. We didnt REALLY want to move to Canberra, but we had to compromise.

We love here now, and if we ever move out of Canberra, it wont be until the kids are out of the house doing their own family/career things.

Im not really a "get off my lawn" type of guy (i dont have a lawn for anyone to get off), generally speaking i think most who do the youth of today stuff are god damn morons. But on the property market i do channel my inner 70 year old man. If you want to take yearly international trips, go out every weekend partying and have all the other luxuries in life, then i dont think it's realistic to expect to be able save for property close to the CBD.
Last edited by Botman on November 10, 2018, 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous »

T_R wrote: Yeah, I think you're getting nitpicky. Most people don't sell their family homes very often. The fact is that you phrased the argument in terms of an investment, and then mocked me for doing the same.

My parents had a fairly transferable job. The point was not that they moved to Canberra, it was that they were prepared to move for the purposes of buying a house.
Most people sacrificing their quality of life to live in whoop whoop would be looking to upgrade as soon as possible. I reckon most would be aiming for around 5-10 years to get a home more suited to child rearing. Wiping a quarter of the value off a presumably reasonably geared investment is going to set that back quite a ways. I didn’t mock you for phrasing it as an investment. I mocked you because you framed it as the same as any other investment, which it’s clearly not.

I understand your point. My point is that not everyone’s lives are as transferable. It’s a good approach for some, one I definitely weighed up.

Ultimately though, we’re now arguing it comes down to people having to uproot their lives and live in less favourable places, disconnecting from their family networks and social circles all so that reasonably wealthy people can invest precisely where they want in a way that really adds no value to our society.

I know where I fall in that choice...
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R »

Today I learned that providing a pool of rental accommodation adds no value to society.
gangrenous wrote: November 10, 2018, 6:36 pm Ultimately though, we’re now arguing it comes down to people having to uproot their lives and live in less favourable places, disconnecting from their family networks and social circles all so that reasonably wealthy people can invest precisely where they want in a way that really adds no value to our society.
No we're not. I'm pointing out that it has been the case for at least the last three generations in my family that people HAVE had to move to places they would not choose for the sake of buying their first home, and it had nothing to do for the most part with negative geared investors.

Nothing's changed. You just moan about it more.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
Dr Zaius
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22869
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Dr Zaius »

Sossman wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-06/ ... ng/6431100

Really good read.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
So over two years, the tight rental markets of Sydney and Perth had rental prices increase. What happens over 10 years? As investors drop off, so does the number of rental properties - that's the hoal. That means that all the rental markets become tight. Then what?
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous »

T_R wrote:No we're not. I'm pointing out that it has been the case for at least the last three generations in my family that people HAVE had to move to places they would not choose for the sake of buying their first home, and it had nothing to do for the most part with negative geared investors.

Nothing's changed. You just moan about it more.
Your last three generations had houses. The stats on that are dropping.

Nothing has changed? Might need to take that up with the RBA as well then.


User avatar
Dr Zaius
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22869
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Dr Zaius »

Pigman wrote:My only contribution to this is my wife and i loved living in Sydney
Specifically Randwick - Coogee, we rented there for a few years at a steep price... well worth it, the lifestyle was great

But we couldnt afford to buy there, at least not a place big enough to have a family in. When my wife got offered a job in Canberra we thought about staying in Sydney, grinding, sacrificing holiday's and lifestyle to pump money into savings and eventually we'd be able to afford to buy in a suburb that wasnt going to be in the eastern suburbs but would have been fine... but we didnt want to do that, we could afford to holiday, have a good time, and buy a house in Canberra in suburbs we like, so we jumped at it. We didnt REALLY want to move to Canberra, but we had to compromise.

We love here now, and if we ever move out of Canberra, it wont be until the kids are out of the house doing their own family/career things.

Im not really a "get off my lawn" type of guy (i dont have a lawn for anyone to get off), generally speaking i think most who do the youth of today stuff are god damn morons. But on the property market i do channel my inner 70 year old man. If you want to take yearly international trips, go out every weekend partying and have all the other luxuries in life, then i dont think it's realistic to expect to be able save for property close to the CBD.
Pigman is right and you **** know it. You know why Coogee is expensive? Cause everyone wants to live there. It's a **** great place! It's the owner occupiers that set the price point - they're willing to pay with their hearts. An investor pays with their heads.

People have done what Piggles has done for generations.

I don't get the contempt for the self funded retiree. My parents worked **** hard, in jobs you wouldn't describe as high paying. We usually went on holidays water-skiing and staying in caravan parks. My first overseas holiday was when I was 16 - to NZ. They rarely went out. We didn't want for anything but never had the latest toys or clothes. The car they had when I was a baby they still owned when I was 18, but had bought a second one. They owned one investment property (statically most investors stop at one despite the hysteria people would have you believe), our former family home. They are self funded retirees, the comfortable type that gangrenous seems to dislike. Theyre enjoying life and you know what, they **** deserve it. They are petrified of a labor government as they have only ever shown contempt for self funded retirees.

Compare and contrast to Johnny Goodtime who goes out on the cans every weekend, always has the latest gadgets and a new car, takes the kids to Bali every year, and wonders why he can't afford a house in the tree lined inner city suburbs suburbs. It must be those damn investors.

Again, it's not the investors that set the price point, it's the owner occupiers. If you fall in love with property you want to live in, you'll go after it. No sensible investor is going to pay overs, and most investors stop at one investment property. This policy does nothing but panders to the Johnny Goodtimes of this world.
User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3457
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman »

Negative gearing makes a loss making exercise viable, even lucrative.

Surely for the 'market rules' zealots, that's a distortion...

What will happen over 10 years?

- well the houses in existence dont disappear. They will be bought to live in or still be rented. Some investors who have left properties vacant while milking the tax rorts might now have to find tenants! The horror!

- developers? Well if the investors will be leaving the market en masse like you say and panic selling, the developers and other more patient investors will buy up at the reduced prices, increase density through re-development and sell at the new market prices.

- purchase prices and rents will eventually reach an equilibrium where owning a rental property is cash positive!

House prices will take the biggest hit... rents over the 10 years will probably steady out.


Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

Get tested for VIKING CLAP today. https://www.health.act.gov.au/hospitals ... lth-centre.
User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3457
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sossman »

But to be fair to negative gearing. That actually hasnt been the fuel on the property fire...


That was the CGT discount Howard put in. That made investment properties far FAR more lucrative. Channelling spare cash in the economy into non-productive assets.

GO FOR GROWTH

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

Get tested for VIKING CLAP today. https://www.health.act.gov.au/hospitals ... lth-centre.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R »


gangrenous wrote:
Your last three generations had houses. The stats on that are dropping.
Dont worry - my kids will have houses, too.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145096
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by greeneyed »

Sossman wrote: November 10, 2018, 7:45 pm Negative gearing makes a loss making exercise viable, even lucrative.

Surely for the 'market rules' zealots, that's a distortion...
It’s not a distortion. You are permitted to make deductions for any work related expenses you incur in earning your income. It’s the same for generating income flows from investments. You get to deduct the expenses in earning income. Limiting deductions in the tax law for one class of assets... that would create a distortion.
Image
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: November 10, 2018, 8:24 pm
Sossman wrote: November 10, 2018, 7:45 pm Negative gearing makes a loss making exercise viable, even lucrative.

Surely for the 'market rules' zealots, that's a distortion...
It’s not a distortion. You are permitted to make deductions for any work related expenses you incur in earning your income. It’s the same for generating income flows from investments. You get to deduct the expenses in earning income. Limiting deductions in the tax law for one class of assets... that would create a distortion.
I am glad you keep repeating this because it saves me the trouble
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear »

Sossman wrote: November 10, 2018, 7:48 pm But to be fair to negative gearing. That actually hasnt been the fuel on the property fire...


That was the CGT discount Howard put in. That made investment properties far FAR more lucrative. Channelling spare cash in the economy into non-productive assets.

GO FOR GROWTH

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
With respect there was a time before capital gains tax existed.

You take a capital loss you don’t get to use that against your income, in the same way capital gains add to your income and income tax burden.

If anything the way income tax and capital gains works, works against housing.

So really I think complaining about the effect of the discount is pathetically ignorant when you didn’t account for the greater effect of the tax in the first place.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: November 10, 2018, 12:08 pm
T_R wrote: November 9, 2018, 10:07 pm The fact is, there's a constant dialogue about how house prices are 'impossible' and 'out of reach' of young people. What we're forgetting is that young families have ALWAYS had to move out to the suburbs to build a house. In the 40's, my grandparents were laughed at for building 'out in the country' in Bankstown. My parents built the first house in the middle of a paddock in Rivett 30 years later, and 30 years after that my brother bought his first place in some windswept floodplain just north of Tharwa. Welcome to young adulthood.

The inner city is expensive, and tax changes will make no difference to that. Why focus on investors? As GE said, whack on an inheritance tax, or if you prefer stop exempting the family home from capital gains. Either will kick the housing market into the gutter, and your shiftless Arts students friends can all buy a falling down terrace in Newtown again.
That's nice, what's all that? 40 mins into town in the worst case? Positively lovely commute in Sydney these days. How many bedrooms were their places? How many years did they need to save for those deposits? How much did house prices rise over the period they were saving?

Dr Zaius wrote: November 10, 2018, 7:12 am Hahaha, you are sensitive gangrenous! Bless your cotton socks.
No need to say a prayer for any of my socks thanks. I meant that it was intellectually offensive in that it was a stupid point, just being polite :)

Dr Zaius wrote: November 10, 2018, 7:12 am You know what is offensive? A party that pushes a policy that fell over a couple of decades ago when implemented, that won't achieve what is designed to, but will have a detrimental effect on low income earners looking to rent, and mum and dad investors.
I'd say that is a long way from certain, and given your previous logically flawed rationales I'm not sure you're really thinking this whole area through well. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-06/ ... ng/6431100


Dr Zaius wrote: November 10, 2018, 7:12 am This is a mean spirited, tall poppy syndrome driven policy designed to again take a pot shot at those that show the initiative and discipline to self fund their retirement. And this is why we are screwed. The liberals are under the thumb of some right wing lunatics, and Labor can be relied upon to trot out this type of BS.
Oh cry me a river :roflmao those poor tall poppies with the investment properties who have all those other investment opportunities we've been talking about will have to fund their comfortable retirements through other means than limiting the ability of their fellow Australians to invest in their own house and fund their own retirement. These battlers could even consider investing in new housing supply instead maybe? Wouldn't that be radical...

But of course it's all in gangers' head about investors driving up prices and destabilising the market right? I dunno lets see what the Reserve Bank had to say about it a few years ago:
Reserve Bank of Australia in 2015 financial stability review wrote: The composition of new mortgage finance remains skewed to investors, however, particularly in the largest cities. Ongoing strong speculative demand would tend to amplify the run-up in housing prices and increase the risk that prices in at least some regions might fall significantly later on.
papabear can show disdain for younger people being anxious about buying into an inflated market. But it's a legitimately tough spot - don't buy in and growth continues for a few years and you end up another 25% behind. Buy in and the market collapses and you're seriously ****. We've seen unsustainable growth and that's made life very difficult for some, and been a blissful boon for others. Sensible policy should have kept growth in more sustainable band.
I am 34 I first bought in 2010 I think, I bought and sold in 2014 again.

I am not an old person showing disdain for younger people.

I am saying it is not the markets fault if you haven’t bought in. Quite simply there is a heap of different housing markets in this country with different price point. Most people buy when they are ready not due to the market and buy where they can afford.

The whinging and bitching is just bad tax policy, bad politics and really you seem intelligent enough to see it for the tax grab it is, so why keep fighting for it.
User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16467
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Schifty »

Is a tax grab still a tax grab if you're removing a tax concession :hmmm
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R »

Schifty wrote: November 10, 2018, 10:40 pm Is a tax grab still a tax grab if you're removing a tax concession :hmmm
Your posts seem more like tweets by the day.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145096
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by greeneyed »

It’s not a tax concession. If you want to argue that all deductions in earning income should disallowed... that might be argued on the basis of simplicity perhaps. But you don’t remove that for just for one income stream, because that would add a distortion.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote: I am 34 I first bought in 2010 I think, I bought and sold in 2014 again.

I am not an old person showing disdain for younger people.

I am saying it is not the markets fault if you haven’t bought in. Quite simply there is a heap of different housing markets in this country with different price point. Most people buy when they are ready not due to the market and buy where they can afford.

The whinging and bitching is just bad tax policy, bad politics and really you seem intelligent enough to see it for the tax grab it is, so why keep fighting for it.
Forgive me for not caring much for your anecdote. Where do you fit on the scale of household income? Who knows?
If you bought in Sydney at that time you would have seen around 70% growth in your house price, while wages would have grown about 13%. So compared to those looking to get into the market now, you are old and out of touch.

Greeneyed’s argument is entirely ideological. The argument for simplicity doesn’t win out against the societal costs of the current policy. Aren’t we one of a handful of countries that do not quarantine housing in some fashion?
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear »

Schifty wrote: November 10, 2018, 10:40 pm Is a tax grab still a tax grab if you're removing a tax concession :hmmm
If you tax bananas at 20 percent no matter retail wholesale whatever keep it simple no credits.

Then the banana farmers all start going broke as people’s taste move towards pears and apples. The govt thinks that’s harsh we will bring that banana tax down and if you own your banana trees for a year you only have to pay half of the 20 percent tax. The govt of the day calls it the big banana concension.

Some banana players move on some survive but the market eventually falls into line.

Some time later a party announces **** banana farmers we a removing the big banana concession on old banana plantations but you can have it on new trees.

In my mind that is a big banana tax grab.

Only a Venezuelan communist would think otherwise.

Or you are so sensitive about housing you refuse to see logic on the issue.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: November 11, 2018, 7:16 am
papabear wrote: I am 34 I first bought in 2010 I think, I bought and sold in 2014 again.

I am not an old person showing disdain for younger people.

I am saying it is not the markets fault if you haven’t bought in. Quite simply there is a heap of different housing markets in this country with different price point. Most people buy when they are ready not due to the market and buy where they can afford.

The whinging and bitching is just bad tax policy, bad politics and really you seem intelligent enough to see it for the tax grab it is, so why keep fighting for it.
Forgive me for not caring much for your anecdote. Where do you fit on the scale of household income? Who knows?
If you bought in Sydney at that time you would have seen around 70% growth in your house price, while wages would have grown about 13%. So compared to those looking to get into the market now, you are old and out of touch.

Greeneyed’s argument is entirely ideological. The argument for simplicity doesn’t win out against the societal costs of the current policy. Aren’t we one of a handful of countries that do not quarantine housing in some fashion?
Main residence exemption is a massive quarantine of some fashion.

If I didn’t have cgt (with or without the discount) and no land tax I would prolly own a bit more property (**** cheap country stuff) but as it stands I prefer to put my money into the main residence then elsewhere.

As for my income well when we have that beer we can maybe go into more detail, but I just don’t feel we have connected on that level to go that deep with each other.

All I was trying to say is I’m not that much of an old bastard.

Thing with housing it is an investment and life decision, unlike every other consumable life decision where the product is mass produced so even if you get it wrong it cost you peanuts so who cares.

But if you invest in anything (shares / business) and you invest wrong you are going to get punished. Just ask some of those good labor people who invested in that good labor business slaters.
User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16467
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Schifty »

papabear wrote: November 11, 2018, 7:39 am
Schifty wrote: November 10, 2018, 10:40 pm Is a tax grab still a tax grab if you're removing a tax concession :hmmm
If you tax bananas at 20 percent no matter retail wholesale whatever keep it simple no credits.

Then the banana farmers all start going broke as people’s taste move towards pears and apples. The govt thinks that’s harsh we will bring that banana tax down and if you own your banana trees for a year you only have to pay half of the 20 percent tax. The govt of the day calls it the big banana concension.

Some banana players move on some survive but the market eventually falls into line.

Some time later a party announces **** banana farmers we a removing the big banana concession on old banana plantations but you can have it on new trees.

In my mind that is a big banana tax grab.

Only a Venezuelan communist would think otherwise.

Or you are so sensitive about housing you refuse to see logic on the issue.
People's taste in housing isn't going anywhere.

Also the policy doesn't effect those that are currently negatively geared, it just means in the future you can only do it on a new property and not an existing one.

So it just moves the incentives for investors into new developments that add stock to the market.

Investors are still free to buy existing property, it just means they'll have to be positively geared.
User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16467
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Schifty »

T_R wrote: November 11, 2018, 1:23 am
Schifty wrote: November 10, 2018, 10:40 pm Is a tax grab still a tax grab if you're removing a tax concession :hmmm
Your posts seem more like tweets by the day.
Thank you :)
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear »

Schifty wrote: November 11, 2018, 9:06 am
papabear wrote: November 11, 2018, 7:39 am
Schifty wrote: November 10, 2018, 10:40 pm Is a tax grab still a tax grab if you're removing a tax concession :hmmm
If you tax bananas at 20 percent no matter retail wholesale whatever keep it simple no credits.

Then the banana farmers all start going broke as people’s taste move towards pears and apples. The govt thinks that’s harsh we will bring that banana tax down and if you own your banana trees for a year you only have to pay half of the 20 percent tax. The govt of the day calls it the big banana concension.

Some banana players move on some survive but the market eventually falls into line.

Some time later a party announces **** banana farmers we a removing the big banana concession on old banana plantations but you can have it on new trees.

In my mind that is a big banana tax grab.

Only a Venezuelan communist would think otherwise.

Or you are so sensitive about housing you refuse to see logic on the issue.
People's taste in housing isn't going anywhere.

Also the policy doesn't effect those that are currently negatively geared, it just means in the future you can only do it on a new property and not an existing one.

So it just moves the incentives for investors into new developments that add stock to the market.

Investors are still free to buy existing property, it just means they'll have to be positively geared.
certain suburbs are going to have negatively geared property no matter how you roll the dice.

It is just unfortunate that those that invest in those suburbs will now have to pay more tax if this policy gets through.
Post Reply