Well until you sell investment properties that's generally how it works aka the whole point of negative gearing lol.

-PB

Not really mate.

A lot of those properties are leveraged. Get the 5 out of your mind.

And potentially, if Negative Gearing goes, I face financial ruin. Probably bankruptcy!

I've seen it before. Farmers thrown of their land because their values slumped. It happened in Europe, and if values slump in Australia, we would be staring down the barrel of a Sub Prime crisis. Possible Banking collapses as well.

Edited by Aikhme: 18/5/2016 01:03:57 AM

No what I'm saying is by having 5 rentals as investment properties it would make you the very opposite to a 'battler'. Ie someone living in housing commission, unemployed, on low pay, etc.

What because you think most investors actually own the houses they buy?

They don't. You can buy a house worth $100,000,000 but if you only put a 100k deposit on that house, your net worth is still only $100,000!

And with $1350 in payments each week, you're still a battler when you earn wages and nothing out of the ordinary wages!!

Not only are you a battler, but you also pay more tax as a result even if you are negatively geared. You are paying for your retirement and saving. So that you can self fund yourself in retirement which I presume you will not even attempt just judging from your posts.

Therefore, I can be an arsehoke and accuse you of ripping off the system but I won't because I don't know your circumstances!

Edited by Aikhme: 18/5/2016 12:52:59 AM

Yes it is your 'lifestyle choice' (probably not the best word) but you are certainly not a battler - that's my point here.

So aspiration is a lifestyle choice is it?

When someone opens a business they are choosing a lifestyle are they? How about when they end up doing 12 hour working days just to cover their overheads, you will just write that off as lifestyle choice?

Lifestyle choice is when you buy a Yacht and sail the Mediterranean or from one Greek Island to the next. That's a lifestyle choice buddy.

Buying Investment Properties is investing in your future. Saving for a rainy day. Aspiring for a better tomorrow and not being a burden on the public purse and claiming a Pension.

Painting houses, and doing other handy man chores as well as your own renovations (to save a few pennies) in the summer time is not a lifestyle choice when you and others are enjoying yourselves at the beach. It's called trying to provide for yourself and your family.

Edited by Aikhme: 18/5/2016 12:13:18 AM

That's not why people are laughing him off. Yes he may struggling to make ends meet but he's not a 'battler' that's his lifestyle choice.

But that is what the Labor Party is all about.

Popularist politics and smoke and mirrors.

let's give the impression we are targeting the Super Wealthy. Well, the Super Wealthy are like the top 0.1% of the population, and they probably can't be arsed investing in property because the returns are low and more gradual. They have the Capital to take higher risks and bigger short term gains.

Property is the bastion of the Aussie battler, because it is low risk and most of us don't have the luxury of shrugging off major speculative losses. Do you remember the Italian and Greek migrant factory workers. They all bought properties and invested in their future and property was the only sensible investment class for them given their circumstances. Most were uneducated, but hard working. They were low socio-economic but had a rental property or 2 or 3.

You guys are way off track. Not only this, but there is huge potential for actually pulling out the rug from underneath millions of low income Australian Battlers who own their home.

Talk about deluded politics.

Edited by Aikhme: 17/5/2016 11:33:25 PM

Are we talking about a particular person? I was talking in general terms about negative gearing.

Edited by mcjules: 17/5/2016 11:10:15 PM

Negative Gearing is only good up to a point. Eventually, the tipping point is reached where properties are usually not Negatively Geared, which means paying more income tax.

People actually think Negative Gearers are ripping of the system because they get a tax deduction.

However, the more properties someone owns, the more indirect taxes which will be paid.

For instance, these are the extra taxes property investors actually pay over and beyond:
1) Property Investors pay land Tax on each Investment property they have. The tax is aggregated and accumulative based on the property values added on top of each other. I pay $12,500 in Land Tax but this amount is based on the property values. Others, may pay more or less.
2) Each Property Investor has to pay Emergency Services Levy. So if you have 5 rentals plus a family home, you pay 6 lots of it and again, the amount is based on the property values. I pay about $3500 in ESL.

The above are contributions directly into Australia's Tax Mix and is revenue for the Government.

Now presuming you do not keep the property forever, when it is sold, the Property Investor pays Capital gains Tax. The last time I sold a house, I was hit with $55,000 in Capital Gains Tax.

Other taxes which are paid, which you can or can't include as taxation are as follows:
1) Council Rates, and
2) Water Rates.

Again, these are taxes, but I will disregard them as such because it is kind of grey.

Now, how much can you actually Negative Gear? Well, most Australian Battlers can't get much from Negative Gearing because quite frankly there is only so much tax most workers actually pay.

So end result is this. Property Investors pay a lot more tax.

Government has to pay interest and there is no where for it to claim that interest. All it can do is cut spending or increase taxes to pay for the debt.

The more the debt, the more interest that needs to be paid, which means less money to finance Health and Education. You can't just keep slugging the tax payer. There are limitations.

Taxing the rich highly won't work out well either, because they will just pull out of Australia for a more favorable tax eco-system.

In the end, when you overspend, you're robbing your own children.

Everyone wants the best schools, roads and hospitals, but if you spend more than you earn, then your children will have worse health and education system because of the debt legacy we leave behind.

FACT!

You see, that is where you guys are all delusional.

Buying 5 rental properties doesn't mean your wealthy. You can be a fireman, school teacher, nurse and even a labourer and own 5 rental properties.

Going to a Bank with a 10 to 20% deposit and buying rentals doesn't mean you own those rentals. You still only own 10 to 20% because the rest is financed by the Bank.

Over time though, you reduce your debt through hard work and sacrifice.

Now, I am going to prove to everyone that those who actually own rentals end up paying a lot more tax overall, even when they are negatively geared.

Government debt = bad.
People racking up millions of $s debt and making losses on their investment on purpose = good

This thread so far from aikhme has been gold

first he argues for liberals income tax cuts on the wealthy making "good of everyone" type arguments with his own links not supporting his arguments about oz income taxes being high compared to oecd
then he finally spits the dummy saying "yeah well I'm sick of paying so much income tax" (indicating he probably earns at least 80k after mortgage deductions - so lower his taxes for the good of all mankind!)
then he complains about labours negative gearing policy after a discussion again having a dummy spit where he claims to be a battler with 5 properties
then he threatens to leave the country (please....no.....don't.....)
Then he talks about all the sacrifices he has made to make himself well off (sorry "battler") as if getting rich is a great service he has done comparable to mother theresa =d> =d> =d>

Edited by grazorblade: 17/5/2016 06:29:38 PM

No doubt why Labor would do anything to prevent restoring the ABCC......corruption at it's best in Australia

Yes it takes a certain amount of courage, hard work and sacrifice. Just because someone has rentals doesn't mean they actually own them either and that the wealth is entirely their's. Sometimes they are leveraged up to 90%

Which makes it a business expense too, and tax deductible like any other business. Otherwise, Government can't collect tax on Capital Gains or profits either. Fair is fair! :cool:

Edited by Aikhme: 17/5/2016 03:30:27 PM

Still avoiding my questions I see. :cool:

They chose to take on that debt lol.

-PB

Another good article explaining the impact of the proposed negative gearing changes:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016--john-symond-is-wrong-on-negative-gearing-heres-why-20160516-gow6tp.html

[size=8]Election 2016: 'Aussie John' Symond is wrong on negative gearing. Here's why [/size]

Date May 17, 2016 - 8:07AM

"Aussie John" has got it wrong.

Here's John Symond on Sunday's Sunrise, asked about Labor's negative gearing policy:


1) "Well, what I'm concerned about is bringing out a sledgehammer and overnight hitting negative gearing on all established housing across Australia."

The Aussie Home Loans founder ought to know that Labor isn't planning to hit negative gearing on all established housing overnight.

On implementation, in July 2017, established housing would be exempted. Existing negative gearing arrangements would be "grandfathered''. That means that anyone already negative gearing a property could keep doing it for as long as they liked, or until they sold. Whenever they sold, at whatever time in the future, they would get the existing capital gains tax discount, instead of the smaller one that would apply to new investors from then on. If anything, the grandfathering would lock them in, slowing the impact of the change.

2) "I don't know whether prices will drop 10 per cent, 20 per cent or more. There's others out there saying it could drop 30 per cent or 40 per cent. I wouldn't think it would drop that much, but one thing I am prepared to bet on it will definitely drop the value of homes."

The government's economic modeller of choice on negative gearing, BIS Shrapnel, finds that after 10 years of a policy similar to Labor's, Sydney home unit prices would be 15 per cent higher. Without Labor's policy, they would be 22 per cent higher. The main impact of Labor's policy would be to slow price rises, something an honest broker trying to get people into houses ought to want.

3) "All I'm saying here is this will hurt everyday Australians. Eighty per cent of property investors are regular mums and dads, with the majority earning less than $80,000 a year."

The tax stats show seven out of 10 negative gearers have incomes before deductions in the top 20 per cent. After deductions, their incomes look lower, which is what Symond may have be referring to.

4) "People will lose jobs because the industry employs hundreds of thousands of people, so we could have mass unemployment."

The Parliamentary Budget Office says Labor's policy would claw back $32 billion over 10 years, around $3 billion per year. It would boost government revenue by a fraction of one per cent.

The real estate industry employs 215,000 people. Negative gearers do indeed turn over properties more quickly than owner-occupiers. If owner-occupiers buy the properties negative gearers once would have, the market will become more stable, meaning less work for agents and for firms such as Symond's.

On the other side of the equation, builders should benefit. From July 2017 full negative gearing would be allowed only on newly built properties. And the slower growth in prices would give the Reserve Bank more room to ease interest rates, supporting employment.

On Monday, Malcolm Turnbull backed Symonds. He said Labor's policy would smash the value of properties. At least he didn't mention mass unemployment.

:-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|=

Wouldn't surprise me. I've never not had issues with delays on a CFMEU Site. The Private Hospital here on the Gold Coast had a few strikes early this year over what were some of the better site conditions I've seen.

Fucking parasites is all I can say.

Yes, plenty of Aussie battlers with multiple rental properties having a go, working hard and sacrificing to make ends meet even.

I'm talking about the individual polls in the marginal seats.

Not looking good for Shorten in QLD and NSW.

I walk past the office here in Townsville every now and then when I'm in the city, place always looks like it has bouncers :lol:

-PB

Aussie battler is someone with 5 rental properties? :lol:

-PB

actually its a 3 point swing since the last national election. State federal polls aren't as common so it is difficult to detect short term swings
A federal swing of about 1 percent to labour from now would be easily enough to win government

Ah New York!

Best place in the world! :cool:

The latest polls have swings to the LNP in Queensland and NSW which means its all over for Shorten. :d

If shorten wins I think this vid is appropriate for Aikhme

[youtube]Y0ZKFJOHHwo[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0ZKFJOHHwo]

last three polls
morgan +1.5 swing to labour from previous poll
newspoll: unchanged
ipsos: + 1 swing to libs from previous poll
Having said that first term government at all levels is a 3 in 4 chance of winning.