Forum Replies Created
fword
1. We are all selfish.
2. Greed was good and now it is not so good.
3. Outright owners will care as prices fall, mortgage holders will care more and least to care will be the 32% of the total population that are renters.
4. I can not think of why house prices rising faster than wage growth, could possibly be a good thing for society. Perhaps you can enlighten me?Germany
GDP – $3.316 trillion (2010)
Taxes and Other revenues – 43% of GDP (2010)
Market Value – $1.43 trillion
Exports – $1.303 trillion (6 times greater than Australia)
Net Foreign Investment – $1.427 trillion more external than internally held.
20.6% over 65 and Median age 44
Anti-speculation laws for residential property helped build this nation.Australia
GDP – $1.236 trillion (2010 est.)
Taxes and Other revenues – 32.3% of GDP (2010 est.)
Market Value – $1.455 trillion
Exports – $212.9 billion
Net Foreign Investment – minus $114.4 billion (more owned than we own)
14% over 65 and Median age 37.7
Pro-speculation laws for residential property helped cripple this nation.fword
I stand corrected.
Outright owners will care, just not as much as someone who is now, or approaching being underwater.
I also take note, that you feel 50% of people may believe, that falling house prices will ultimately be a good thing.ummester
All that is required is anti-speculation laws and taxes, like Germany.
How much better off would be be as a nation, had our $1.3 trillion of home mortgages gone into investments that produced real GDP?
Much, I would state.note to self…
I think Australia may level at 4 times the average wage eventually, slightly higher than the global average.
We are a wealthy remote island.1. 32% of all homes, not 32% of the population.
2. If I buy a car or a TV I expect it to be worth 30% less the moment I take possession
3. Land valuations are currenly done by the Valuer General..
4. Housing will decline to its intrinsic value, or 3.5 times a single wage, or when the mortgage (90% LVR) payment is 1.5 times the rental yield.
6. Did you miss seeing the information about the $5.6 billion spent on public housing? In June last year, half the building approvals for units were public units.
http://www.economicstimulusplan.gov.au/housing/pages/default.aspx
7. At a tax free threshold of $40k, the average battler will pay $5500 less tax per year.
8. It is unclear as to if rents did not increase the last time NG was taken away.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/03/calls-to-restrict-negative-gearing-grow-louder/
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/negative-gearing-property-prices-rent-investment-pd20110321-F66MY?opendocumentPauk wrote:Quite wrong. The outright owners are the biggest group not to care at all if prices drop 40% over the next 7 years. They have their 'home' and it may be irrelevant if it is at either a top price or a bottom price. They just do not care.
Still disagree. For the vast majority of Australians, most of their wealth lies in the home that they own outright. If house prices take a dramatic fall, many of the fellow Australians around you will be far poorer. Many Australians are unaware of how to release the wealth they have in their own home without actually selling. However, disregarding even this for a moment, it is possible for a retired older couple to sell their home and rent, and put the money towards a nice trip around the world or a great car. I do not even need to ask my parents if they would be concerned about their house value falling by 40%. It's obvious that they would be.
Me in blue.. just to keep it fresh and tangy…
32% of the homes are outright owners. It was 47% in 1965.It may be that the pensioner or part pensioner is fine with the income stream, and those pensioners do not care, as much as a leverage buyer, about falling prices.
Pauk wrote:Yes perhaps over a long time, say 20 years, Now, start at 0.5% and go to 0.75% within 5 years.
That's still $1,750 pa for a $350K house. I do not know of too many people who live in such houses and of that demographic who can pull an additional $1,750 out of their wallets for land tax. I've had some clients in tears just worrying about meeting their electricity and water bills. We have more deep-set problems than a land tax is going to resolve. Far from it, a land tax of such proportions only compounds the problem. Also, it kills the great Australian dream for even more people because we'd rather rent than contend with high land tax. With your other measures, property is going to become a very unfavourable investment. So who's going to provide all those properties for people to rent? The government. And guess who's going to be paying for this, the equivalent of rent assistance for not just a portion of the population, but the entire nation? That's right, you and I, in tax and by the bucket-load. Oh wait, you only pay tax if earning over $40K pa.
It is designed to be anti-speculation law and to decrease the attraction to residential property speculation.
It is cheaper for the government to provide negative gearing benefits to property investors rather than to provide subsidised housing to the public. If it were the other way around, would they not have done so already?
Pauk wrote:It really is a sperm lottery if you accept no death tax.
If we do as you say (and also increase tax-free threshold to $40K pa, which would undoubtedly increase taxes for those above this threshold), we are not helping Australia to progress and prosper. We're simply creating a nation of underachievers. High flyers and overachievers who naturally earn a higher income will head overseas and tax evasion will be rife amongst those who do remain, just to stay under the $40K threshold.
Noted, however I still disagree with the premise.
Pauk wrote:That investors are already in competition with FHB. It will make older homes more affordable as investors and speculators, stay away fro them in droves.
See above point regarding land tax and even our discussion immediately above regarding death taxes. The FHB class is officially dead if we go ahead with your proposal because nobody would want to own a house. Everyone would prefer to rent with the government providing our housing and with us all STILL paying for the said housing. And I doubt if the government can maintain rental properties as well as some landlords. Population will take a dive because the only people who will be staying away in droves are the more successful people in Australia. And yes, I mean they'll be leaving the country, not just refusing to invest in it.
Nothing wrong with a nation of renters. As many renters now as outright owners. It is the other 38% that are the worry….
Pauk wrote:You are by paying tax now. Do you know what is about to happen to our pension costs in Australia over the next 15 years? Do you know that 80% of the 5.2 million boomers, will require full or part pensions. You are going to pay more tax.
Precisely correct. And so I'm bewildered…you still want to increase welfare payments? Bear in mind now that in this scenario, it wouldn't be long before the majority of the people in Australia will be those earning $40K or less and paying no taxes. So, who's going to supply the money for welfare payments? The politicians? The welfare system will spontaneously implode.
Land tax, increased GST, mining tax, international nuclear waste storage revenues ($100 billion) etc…
Pauk wrote:Good, because some Brisbane suburbs went up 10% in one quarter following the floods there and Gladstone is a shocking mess now.
Look, laying down 'laws' these days is uncool. You got to find a solution. Obviously the rent increases in those areas so happened because of the lack of supply, and there's actually demand to support the said rental increases. What are we supposed to do about that? Someone provides the service and somebody else is prepared to pay for it too. Nobody is forcing renters there to pay those prices. They could live in a tent is they so choose, or take a flight in and out each day.
They are livingin tents in Gladstone and renatl increases due to mining and natural disasters needs to be created, now.
Pauk wrote:Any young Australian that spends time overseas working and then decides to return permanently, is our asset.
Define 'permanent'. What measures should we implement to ensure an Australian so returning will actually stay and work in Australia for the rest of their life? Also, do they necessarily need to be 'young'? Are there going to be age limits? What about a person who decides to come back, work for say, 2 weeks and then live of the massive welfare benefits that would now be present under this scenario with increased welfare payments?
No age limit and wiped out when they buy Australian property on their return..
fword
Since when was this ever a 'goal'? People set out to make life easier and better for themselves, NOT make life miserable for everybody else. Don't develop a complex here.Me in black
I do not accept that individualism is so alive. Making the cost of living cheaper for the following generations, is my goal.Depends on whether you currently own a house or not. If you scrimped, saved and invested your way into finally having the title to that roof over your head, no, it's NOT a good thing.
Quite wrong. The outright owners are the biggest group not to care at all if prices drop 40% over the next 7 years. They have their 'home' and it may be irrelevant if it is at either a top price or a bottom price. They just do not care.
Pauk wrote:2. Land tax of 1.5%, all property, no exemptions (pensioners and other low income groups can accrue this until the house is sold)You're joking, right? That's land tax of $5,250 pa on a $350K house and $12,000 pa on a $800K house. People are struggling with mortgage repayments and living expenses, and you want to slap them with a land tax of mega proportions?
Yes perhaps over a long time, say 20 years, Now, start at 0.5% and go to 0.75% within 5 years.
Pauk wrote:3. Death tax of 20% on estates over $1million.So, you're against things that make life more costly for future generations and now you want to reduce their inheritance? By the way, $1 million is NOT a lot of money in today's terms. I say that when people die, let them be and they should pay no 'taxes' starting from the time of death. Estate tax should be 0%, not 20%. Just think about it. Each of us is ALREADY paying tax every time we earn money. Why should we pay tax again on assets that have already been taxed in the past?
It really is a sperm lottery if you accept no death tax.
Pauk wrote:4. No stamps.Agreed. There's been some talk in the papers recently about this. Some murmurs are going around to suggest this should be scrapped. However the government is sure to introduce a separate tax under a different name to compensate for the loss of revenue from stamps, or to otherwise increase other taxes.
Pauk wrote:6. NG on new builds only.Counterproductive. This will cause investors to flood in and buy in the areas that are currently most affordable (house and land packages) and in demand from first home buyers.
That investors are already in competition with FHB. It will make older homes more affordable as investors and speculators, stay away fro them in droves.
Pauk wrote:7. GST to 20% and the tax free threshold for wage earners raised to $40k. Increase welfare payments accordingly.Far out, I'm not putting my hand up for contributing towards INCREASED welfare payments. Maybe others may agree to such humanitarian efforts!
You are by paying tax now. Do you know what is about to happen to our pension costs in Australia over the next 15 years? Do you know that 80% of the 5.2 million boomers, will require full or part pensions. You are going to pay more tax.
Pauk wrote:8. Rent increases no greater than CPI +2% by law. Natural disasters aand mining booms are creating hugh rental stress.Hey, I'd be happy to be able to put up the rent by 5%. I only did a 1% increase in the past year.
Good, because some Brisbane suburbs went up 10% in one quarter following the floods there and Gladstone is a shocking mess now.
Pauk wrote:10. For someone who emigrated away from OZ and has been away longer than 5 years, their HECS debt get cancelled on their permanent return.And you'll get a situation where people take advantage here by getting education at markedly reduced fees before running away to work elsewhere and benefit a different country (before they come crawling back after their 6 year overseas stint). I disagree with this suggestion.
[/quote]Any young Australian that spends time overseas working and then decides to return permanently, is our asset.
ummester wrote:fWord wrote:Since when was this ever a 'goal'? People set out to make life easier and better for themselves, NOT make life miserable for everybody else. Don't develop a complex here.I'm gonna end up posting a John Lennon song:)
Agree. I think the preoccupation with property, is breaking in front of you now and 'equality' will remain as a central goal of Gen X and after. Anti-speculation property law will be with us this decade.
I am creating a company to 'mine our minds' and I do not need $400k. http:/www.demografix.com.au
We actually do have resources that are infinite.fWord
Thanks, and noted.forsaleforlease.com.au will get your private sale into all the major portals for $495 last time I looked.
So why use an agent? Everybody knows that realestate.com.au is the source for buyers.
So as Mr Meldrom would say, do yourself a favour and if you have to discount, take off the coms of what an agent would have got.
Peaking emigration, 32% of workers are part time or casual, thee US can;t get their act together, the EU is falling apart and China is about to pop its RE bubble…..
No all is fine…….not.
so what is your option? did you see the first chart?
If we had a 3.5% to 4,5% tax of the sale of property like the Germans, who also have 25% capital gains….
62% of German rent and a very large number of them invest into the mutual funds that owns the housing. Speculation has been frowned upon from Hitler on…..Here?
1. New credit laws to make it harder for anyone over 35 to get a loan…..did that…..
2. Pressure banks to follow rba……did that
3. Cut down population growth to 1.1%…… did that
4. Talk about changes to asset tests on the PPOR for the aged for aged care and pensions……did that
5. Massively increase public construction (50% of all units bulky in June 2010 were public units)…… Did that, then stop it cold, also did that…..
6. Support interest rates going up to fight inflation driven by the mining economy……did that
7. Casualise the workforce……did that
8. Cut the FHOG……did thatMy god what else can I do? Maybe a commodities price bust? Grow unemployment?
Really you ask to much, prices have peaked and are on the decline, get used to it……
In 2010….The brain drain……
88,200 Australian residents departed permanently, or approx 1,700 per week and of the total number, 53,000 were skilled and mostly between 25 and 35!
86,300 long term residents departed permanently
203,160 long term residents departed permanently
377,640 total permanent departures, or approx 31,470 per month.12,9410 new settlers
113,580 long term residents returning
340, 540 long term visitors arriving
583, 540 total permanent settlersIn 2000…
43,840 Australian residents departed permanently
88,100 long term residents departed permanently
74,220 long term residents departed permanently
206,110 total permanent departures, or approx 17,175 per month.all from
http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3401.0Dec%202010?OpenDocumentEdited by pauk, Today, 8:00 AM.
Rent and rent your property out. This will add income to you and increase your eligibility for higher loans.
You will be able to move back in and still claim it as your PPOR for up to six years, to avoid the CGT.If after completing the two units, the yields are low and you have based your assumptions on capital gains, then sorry, you made a bad decision. If the yields are high, then they will sell to investors seeking yields.
It is really the people leaving, emigrants that is the main problem.
Long term visitors are returning home, students are not getting permanent visas, NZ are no longer getting the dole and 42,000 Australian born residents left permanently last year and it is trending up….
