Yes I mentioned the Bank discounting it in order to sell after 12 months.

I have been monitoring properties that were on the market for 3 years without selling.

It is a fact that property is the favored investment class by migrants and ethnic podiums such as myself regardless of whether data is collected or not.

I think I am fine and whether people believe me or not is a matter for them. All I can do is put my opinions and arguments forward in an honest and sincere manner.

Whether NG goes ahead of not, I do have a plan of action anyway. Grandfathering and overseas investment! Money has no borders, and there is money to be made overseas which is tax free! :cool:

No, your hypothetical house was worth 500k and sells for 350k...that's a 30% drop. Even 20% is very unlikely.

You have no evidence that an Australian bank would force a default on a home owner who was keeping up with payments - ie making the bank money - you tried to use the farmer example but dont know enough about it to know the difference farm businesses and average homes.

Your comments show you are confused as to whether the changes will affect existing investments. You inexplicably link the policy to ethnic profiling!!! WTF?
Yesterday you were trying to tell us that 10 million Australians have negatively geared investments - you then back tracked to 'more than a million'. .....
You keep getting the details wrong...why would anyone trust you to know 'how the banks see it'? =; =; =;

Still no answers to my questions!

Who are the crooks?

No I used a 20% reduction which is perfectly feasible in any scenario.

Banks will not accept unsecured loans. They will harass to secure their position which means they will Harrass you to make a lump sum payment, sell assets or they take matters into their own hands.

Once the loans are not secure, they are considered bad non performing loans and that effects their borrowing power and liquidity.

It's what banks would rather do. Sometimes, better to cut your losses. That is how they see it.

Edited by Aikhme: 18/5/2016 05:28:23 PM

Ethnicity had nothing to do with it. Www.zerohedge.com have been going hard on Australian Real Estate for a few years now, trying to expose the rort it has become. I won't fight for you in this case... Property market stinks and is full of crooks.

Edited by soft news: 18/5/2016 03:47:24 PM

...whoosh..BTW

There are so many things wrong with your doomsday scenario.

1- a fall from 500K to 350K is a 30% drop, not 20%. This is at the upper end of the scare campaign. The only way this is conservative is if you mean that you heard it from a conservative commentator.
2- the idea, that the banks will come after home owners for more money, who are making their payments, just because their home value drops is very unlikely. As you say the bank ultimately has to sell at a loss! Why not just keep on taking the interest payments for 20 years? You may like to elaborate on the farmers example.... farms usually involve much larger business loans, its quite a different situation.
3- then you refer to the proposed changes 'for existing properties only' ?!?
4-..... ultimately, where you take most discussions....you make this into something against 'ethnics. ?!? =;

As far as I am aware the changes to negative gearing are also only to impact on new investors (that is you current investments will not be affected).

Also some articles that show model predictions are not "dire" for Australia, and will save billions in the national budget. The top 10% earners will be hardest hit apparently.

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/grattan-institute-backs-labors-negative-gearing-policy-20160425-goe2op
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/independent-modelling-backs-labors-negative-gearing-policy-20160219-gmyl8o.html

Stamp Duty is a state tax, not federal.

:lol: :lol: :lol: =d> =d> =d>

The government will never do it:lol:

I also believe a Labour Government will shoot itself in the foot because in gain from abolishing Negative Gearing will be eaten up with slumps in the following revenue streams:
1) Stamp Duties,
2) Land Tax,
3) Emergency services Levy,
4) Capital Gains Tax.

I remember paying $55,000 in CGT once which is a huge amount of tax. This raises the Government Billions. There won't be as much of this anymore because there will be less investment.

I believe the above taxes on property far outweigh Negative Gearing by a lot.

Then why not abolish Stamp duties on development land? That would be a sure kick-starter.

Yes I am a Property Investor. I don't think I am Negatively Geared though and I don't want to be Negatively Geared either.

However, there were instances where I was Negatively Geared such as when I suffer malicious damage which leaves me out of pocket not to mention hours upon hours of my own labour and time.

The most I have ever got back in a single year was just a few grand, but generally speaking I have to fork out some tax each and every year.

However, I am deeply concerned should Negative Gearing be abolished even for existing properties only. I believe it will be very difficult to avoid a slump in property demand and that is going to effect single home owners and renters most of all. It also targets specific investor profiles - ethnic middle income investors who do not know other investment classes like stocks.

A major price correction sounds good if you're not an investor (and I'm not one either). If one were to actually happen there'd be a pretty big recession and it's going to impact a lot more than just investors. Not much good having cheap housing if you don't have a job.

House prices in Sydney and Melbourne as insane. I support a major price correction. Property market is a Ponzi Scheme now. Are you a property investor Aikhme? Even the POM's know Negative Gearing is a rort if used wrongly...

Edited by soft news: 18/5/2016 01:51:21 PM

Difference is there was a terrible over supply of houses in the US.

We have an under supply which is cause the price increase more so than things like negative gearing.

Which is why the plans form labor are only to eliminate negative gearing on older houses. New house will still be able to be negatively geared against.

Investors are probably the least likely to be affected.

the most likely to be affected on home owners. Those owning 1 home and with little collateral. These are the people the Banks are going to go after if they are headed towards the wall.

Those not leveraged high, will be ok.

It is always the poorest that will bear the brunt. And Shorten's policies, will expose the poor and renters big time.

Landlords will just lack up rents by $1000 for each property. Those with 5 properties will end up with $5,000 more each year. :cool:

So who pays? The poor pay.

How much do I lose from my tax return? Probably only 1 or 2k each year at most. :cool:

Edited by Aikhme: 18/5/2016 01:06:13 PM

Damn better blame all those people with 5+ mortgages on investment properties.

-PB

Its Incredibly simplistic to make those comparisons.

Sure there is an over supply of apartments in major cities and there is likely to be some kind of correction in the future but 20% across the board ?

Its reminds me of the mythical grizzly that keeps appearing on the front page of the papers every 6 months when the share market dips.

Yes very!

House prices have dropped by up to 50% in the USA during the Sub Prime Crisis.

In Greece and Cyprus, they fell anywhere between 30 to 50% depending on the location.

Properties have even been left on the market for 2 years or more and just don't sell.

Hence, Banking Collapse.

There are instances in the world where all of this has occurred - Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and even USA.

It can happen in Australia too.

I think the banks have caught on to this. Its not as easy to borrow money as it used to be.

When i bought my first unit 10 years ago, the bank offered me a $450k. This was for a 21yo with 0 years work experience.

Now with about 250k equity in my current property plus twice as much income they wont lend me 300k

They know whats happening.

Lets not forget the banks are making heaps of money. If the need to they just sack a few hundred employees to make sure they do.

Best thing to do is consolidate. And reduce your debt. You dont need to be rich to be happy

Ahh the negative gearing argument.

The only socially acceptable way of telling someone your losing money.

House prices dropping 20% is a conservative estimate. Spare me :lol:

Id love to have some spare cash ( 5 -10k ) to play the sharemarket
alas, it sits in the offset account trying to pay my mortgage off :(

Don't worry! A lot of people are baffled!

Imagine explaining to someone who has no clue that money doesn't exist and is created artificially.

People are also under the allusion that Australian Banks are strongly regulated. let me tell you that they are NOT more regulated than the Banks in Cyprus or other EU countries.

Edited by Aikhme: 18/5/2016 11:16:17 AM

You know that is nowhere near the capital adequacy ratios set by APRA right?

I think I understand mansplaining now.

It doesn't matter what regulatory framework you have in place. Banks can collapse. The Regulatory Framework only slightly reduces the chances or minimises the risks.

However, all Banks are subject to market fluctuations, and property prices are a huge fundamental since Banks lend based on the value of property collateral 97% of the time.