Garbage take mate.... Sorry but those 5 properties (again I presume) were rented out to people who could have also chosen to purchase a property and pay it off as property prices were only 3 times the average salary back then as you state....  For whatever reason they chose to rent instead of investing in their housing future.  - I am taking a massive assumption here and presuming the accumulation of properties didnt ALL happen in the last decade, but rather was a "life's work" for tsf's mum (and every other migrant success story)

Housing is indeed a human right as is the right to accumulate or spend as much as you wish or dont as the case may be... Those 5 properties contribute financially to the country we all live in, via taxes and rates. They provide housing to people, they create work for people to build and maintain them.. Attack overseas investors and land banking arseholes all you want... Mum and Dad investors, buying houses to leave to their children are NOT the devil mate. 

Struck a nerve have I? I already said I don't blame them for taking advantage of the system but it needs to stop. It's gotten out of hand.

What taxes? They're getting a refund. It's costing the government. As for rates they both pay the same.

Besides any of that one person owning 5 houses vs 5 people owning 5 houses contribute exactly the same way to the country. I would argue 5 separate people owning 5 separate houses would be far more beneficial to society than having wealth concentrated amongst a few.

But you'd expect nothing less from a do-gooder pinko like me.

If you think it's OK to own 12 properties or sell them off to foreign investors so they can lock Australians out of home ownership then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

 

Mate I really dont get this point of view... Did your mum steal those properties from anyone? Did she cheat a more deserving person out of them? No, she worked her fingers to the bone (sorry not a personal comment just presuming here) to buy them like every other person had the opportunity to, through savy investment and sacrifice. Increasing her land tax every 15 mins and forcing her to jack up rent or even worse list properties on AirBnB to make a decent income from them is NOT going to make a lifestyle seeker be more frugal with their spending and help them buy themselves a property... its ONLy punsihning people who, through hard graft, managed to scrape together a nest egg.

The generational disparity in housing affordability is a separate thing all together, far to simplistic to blame the "boomers" 

she worked nowhere near as hard as others have in my family of recent times for far less outcomes, she was lucky to take advantage of that legislation change when prices were still good, back with the original property you could pay off a house on Brunswick st fitzroy in a few years basically,

2 of her houses are dormant for 70% of the year, because holiday rentals make enough cash....when we have a housing crisis this isn't fair. We need a new approach, otherwise why not privatise and make things like water a for-profit only thing as well, and only reward those who save with a drink 

property prices have increased over 3 times to wage increases in the last ten years. 

I am sorry, but I am completely against negative gearing

Out of curiosity what would you suggest is a fair, equitable method of a family investing for the future? Once the house, the cars, the kids education, throwing a few sheckles to worthy charities (South Melbourne membership counts as charity no?) and the yearly holidays are taken care of what do you do with the rest of the income coming in .... leave it in the bank to accumulate peanuts and hope that inheritance tax doesn't chew up your life's work? What is the reward for working hard in your eyes? Spending the surplus on trivialities and relying on the government pension in your old age? Serious question, not having ago just want your point of view. 

I dont disagree with this mate, but again I think we are discussing two separate issues...  The legislation she took advantage off back in the day when "prices were still good" was OPEN to everyone... Fact is that people choosing a rent lifestyle over property ownership helped people like your mum achieve her financial goals.... but these people ALSO had the choice to do the same thing.....  yet didnt. 

Not really. Some people live paycheck to paycheck. Some people got financially ruined by divorce. Some people didn't have enough equity to qualify for an investment loan, some people were too ill, some people were uneducated about financial investments, some people didn't know the right people, some people knocked their missus up when they were 19 and she worked as a check out chick or whatever. And yes, you are right, some people could have done it but didn't.

BUT not everyone has the same advantages or opportunities. (A statement that Enzo and Rusty will vehemently disagree with.)

I read somewhere that 60 or 70% or all properties bought in Sydney by young people now are getting help from their parents. (The bank of Mum and Dad.) Good for them if you have parents that can help out but that's hardly fair is it when you can't get into the market unless mummy and daddy can help you. How have we gotten ourselves in this shit situation? (One reason, amongst others, is the government spends half of what they did 20 years ago on public housing.) 

All good.

To cut a long story short. The ASX.

And you don't even have to pick potential winners. Buy 2 or 3 ETFs and you're done.

No insurance, no repairs, no rates, no shitty tenants, no land tax, no hassle. Reinvest all the dividends.

Not only are your shares appreciating in value (over the long term it's virtually a certainty), you're increasing your holding constantly. And 90% of the time they're fully franked so you're not paying tax on the income they're generating.

For example. I bought 2000 'EXAMPLE' shares 3 years ago. They've gone up 40% in that time. But better than that I've increased my holding through their dividends to 2800 through their reinvestment facility. That's 800 free shares. So even had they not appreciated 40% in actual value I'd still be ahead 40%. (IE even if they drop back to what they were 3 years ago I'm still 40% up.)  

When you hit retirement age change from reinvesting the dividends to direct deposits.

I wish I started 20 years earlier. I would encourage anyone to do the same. You won't regret it if you stay away from speccys. (And virtual currencies.)




PS: Evolution is geared towards the greater good of the herd not the individual.

AAARRRGGGHH what happened to part #1 of your reply, I just finished reading and was gonna come back with a witty reply...

I dont think you are a hypocrite btw, we see eye to eye alot more than you think... Although by investing in the ASX you are passing on the "ills" of property ownership (yes even residential housing stock my friend) to companies you have a virtual zero say in the running of... :)

Evolution, at the singular level is geared towards passing on a specific set of genetic instructions on to the next "generation" with the aim of the greater good of the species at a micro level it has EVERYTHING to do with the bank of mum and dad :P

I dont disagree with this mate, but again I think we are discussing two separate issues...  The legislation she took advantage off back in the day when "prices were still good" was OPEN to everyone... Fact is that people choosing a rent lifestyle over property ownership helped people like your mum achieve her financial goals.... but these people ALSO had the choice to do the same thing.....  yet didnt. 

Negative gearing is a way for the government, and future governments, to kick the can on social welfare costs down the road for a few generations, nothing more nothing less... It is NOT the only driver of housing un-affordability. I ask you the same question I asked Muz... what would you think is the better alternative to invest in if not "bricks and mortar"? ... Dont say taxi licenses, the government already burned a generation on that one :)

Buying stocks in ASX companies is keeping no one out of a home.

Sure, as long as none of your shares are in Real Estate "groups" eh Muz :)

https://www.listcorp.com/asx/sectors/real-estate

Don't invest in those if they're residential. Commercial or industrial. Go for it.

Or there's 2300 other companies you can invest in.

Or do whatever you want.

I didn't get involved in the negative gearing argument because nothing you can say will change Enzo's mind.

Him and rusty are cut from the same cloth. If you can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps and make a go of it then FUCK YOU, you deserve everything that's coming to you. Up to and including a life of living just above the poverty line eking out an existence and living from paycheck to paycheck hoping your car doesn't break down or one of your kids needs a school excursion that'll wipe your savings out.

But I have 10 spare minutes so here we go.

Negative gearing started out as an OK idea but has morphed into a disaster for people trying to get into a home and has effectively locked out a generation of young people and entrenched intergenerational wealth transfer. Nett result, rich get richer, poor people are locked out and inequality rises across society. 

Only a halfwit moron cannot see that is the case.

Personally I believe housing is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, like universal healthcare and public education, clean drinking water and the ability to access energy. (Which should never have been sold off by the way.)

Given my above beliefs (a left wing, pinko, do-gooder, socialist) I find it immoral that housing can be used as an investment vehicle. Negative gearing should be grandfathered and phased out over time starting yesterday.

All the money the government was paying back in rebates and deductions can then go into building homes and social housing. LIKE THEY USED TO DO. IE increase supply. If supply goes up, rents come down and those that used to invest in housing will now get out because their 'investment' is now worth less which, guess what, frees up more supply. You cannot get rid of negative gearing UNLESS you increase supply. If that means building 10s of thousands of basic 2 bedroom apartments with 1 bathroom, a small combined kitchen/lounge as a stepping stone to a bigger place in the future what's wrong with that?

It is unconscionable for a young couple to go to a auction or a sale and be competing against someone with 20 or 30 houses in their portfolio or someone from overseas. It's flat out immoral, rank and demeans us as a society.

And before someone says it's nurses, paramedics , firemen and policemen investing in houses so poor them, they can fuck right off and invest in the ASX or commercial or industrial real estate if they want to put their money somewhere.

As for renters renting while they save for a deposit that's immeasurably harder now then when I was 20. Decades ago, when I was renting, it was cheaper to rent then have a mortgage which meant you could rent AND save a deposit. But guess what Enzo, rents are almost, if not, the same as a mortgage which means young people are locked renting and unable to save for a deposit. (Which are multiples more of the average salaries to buy a house 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30.)

Of course getting rid of negative gearing and increasing supply will drive down house prices across the board and politically it is a suicidal argument to try and prosecute. Ergo - there is not a politician from either side, barring the Greens, who are willing to do anything about it. (Unsurprisingly many of them, from both sides, have a portfolio of multiple properties.)

A half decent, sort of compromise was when Bill Shorten proposed negative gearing would only be available on new builds to encourage new supply going forward. A halfway decent idea that would have been worth trying. Of course he lost so we'll never know.

Negative gearing IS NOT the only problem, there's a myriad of reasons, but it's definitely a very big part of it.

Will also just say isn't it interesting that 'immigration' is the biggest new story in the UK, the US and Australia all at the same time. What an amazing coincidence. Murdoch of course would have nothing to do with it. Farking LMFAO. 

How very opportune to blame 'dirty' immigrants of course. Would expect nothing less from the usual suspects. Conveniently discounting massive waves of post-war immigrants that somehow the government managed to build houses for.

Garbage take mate.... Sorry but those 5 properties (again I presume) were rented out to people who could have also chosen to purchase a property and pay it off as property prices were only 3 times the average salary back then as you state....  For whatever reason they chose to rent instead of investing in their housing future.  - I am taking a massive assumption here and presuming the accumulation of properties didnt ALL happen in the last decade, but rather was a "life's work" for tsf's mum (and every other migrant success story)

Housing is indeed a human right as is the right to accumulate or spend as much as you wish or dont as the case may be... Those 5 properties contribute financially to the country we all live in, via taxes and rates. They provide housing to people, they create work for people to build and maintain them.. Attack overseas investors and land banking arseholes all you want... Mum and Dad investors, buying houses to leave to their children are NOT the devil mate. 

All good.

To cut a long story short. The ASX.

And you don't even have to pick potential winners. Buy 2 or 3 ETFs and you're done.

No insurance, no repairs, no rates, no shitty tenants, no land tax, no hassle. Reinvest all the dividends.

Not only are your shares appreciating in value (over the long term it's virtually a certainty), you're increasing your holding constantly. And 90% of the time they're fully franked so you're not paying tax on the income they're generating.

For example. I bought 2000 'EXAMPLE' shares 3 years ago. They've gone up 40% in that time. But better than that I've increased my holding through their dividends to 2800 through their reinvestment facility. That's 800 free shares. So even had they not appreciated 40% in actual value I'd still be ahead 40%. (IE even if they drop back to what they were 3 years ago I'm still 40% up.)  

When you hit retirement age change from reinvesting the dividends to direct deposits.

I wish I started 20 years earlier. I would encourage anyone to do the same. You won't regret it if you stay away from speccys. (And virtual currencies.)




PS: Evolution is geared towards the greater good of the herd not the individual.

All good.

To cut a long story short. The ASX.

And you don't even have to pick potential winners. Buy 2 or 3 ETFs and you're done.

No insurance, no repairs, no rates, no shitty tenants, no land tax, no hassle. Reinvest all the dividends.

Not only are your shares appreciating in value (over the long term it's virtually a certainty), you're increasing your holding constantly. And 90% of the time they're fully franked so you're not paying tax on the income they're generating.

For example. I bought 2000 'EXAMPLE' shares 3 years ago. They've gone up 40% in that time. But better than that I've increased my holding through their dividends to 2800 through their reinvestment facility. That's 800 free shares. So even had they not appreciated 40% in actual value I'd still be ahead 40%. (IE even if they drop back to what they were 3 years ago I'm still 40% up.)  

When you hit retirement age change from reinvesting the dividends to direct deposits.

I wish I started 20 years earlier. I would encourage anyone to do the same. You won't regret it if you stay away from speccys. (And virtual currencies.)




PS: Evolution is geared towards the greater good of the herd not the individual.

I too am a rapist 

there's always a first time for agreeing with someone. 

lehrmann not only loses defamation case, but justice finds he 'raped higgins' on balance of probabilities. 

Doesn't even mean anything these days. Just a political word to shame men generally.

Even by your standards this is pathetic.

Have to laugh at Rusty.

Lehrmann denied any sexual activity taking place. That's important. He didn't say there was consent or it was consensual or there was even any sex at all. He said nothing happened.

 

I reckon half the people ever born are the results of drunken sex.


He didn't say that- he actually said he didn't have *intercourse* with her..I think something happened but he didn't fuck her. 

Most rape cases turn on consent, not on whether it happened. He could not have known she would not have gotten a sexual assault medical examination, and if she had and he had sex with her, he would be done for so it makes no sense for him to lie about it.

What likely happened is that both went to the office to get it on, there was a bit of this and that, it stopped for some reason, and she ended up with buyers remorse the next morning.

With the consent laws in her favour, and the Me Too frenzy going into overdrive, it was a perfect opportunity for her to play the victim, play politics and get paid.  Her boyfriend the publicist saw the opportunity, the ACT DPP disgraced himself, the Activist Victimes of Crimes Commissioner Heidi Yates giddily said she was "the face of the movement" and had to continue doing media appearances.  Everything aligned.