On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-02-06, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 09:45:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>><rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights.
>>>>
>>>>>> Dunno, doubt he would risk another broken promise.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Expect to see a reduction in this benefit in the near future.
>>>>
>>>>>> Unlikely.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The benefits of this tax break has not
>>>>>>> reduced property prices nor rent levels.
>>>>
>>>>>> It was never intended to but it certainly
>>>>>> does increase the available rental stock.
>>>>
>>>>>> Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!
>>>>
>>>>>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>>>>>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>>>>>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!
>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing like with negative gearing.
>>>>
>>>>>>> BAH!
>>>>
>>>>>> Fuck off sheeple.
>>>>
>>>>> No, I won't.
>>>>
>>>>OK, the dogs are off their chains.
>>>>
>>>>> Also we're being softened up for a vacancytax, where unused sites will
>>>>> incur a tax.
>>>>
>>>>Fantasy
>>>>
>>>>> Single-person households will have to pay.
>>>>
>>>>Even Albo isnt THAT stupid.
>>>>
>>>>> Much like the window tax of the 1700s.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing even remotely like.
>>>>
>>>>> The Asian owners of empty high-rise towers expect this.
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant to what happens here.
>>>
>>> I remember the governor of the reserve bank commenting that if people
>>> could double up and live several to a house, then much of the problem
>>> could be solved. Too right. There used to be granny flats, and
>>> granny could take care of the kids while mummy went to work.
>>> So....
>>> Pressure off housing.
>>> Pressure off day care.
>>> Pressure off aged care.
>>> Pressure off we poor struggling taxpayers!
>>>
>>> Indeed the solution would be for interest rates to go MUCH higher so
>>> forcing the idle poor to cohabit.
>>>
>>>
>>Did the governor of the reserve bank really say something so braindead?
>
> He said only "if people lived together" there would less pressure on
> housing. I have extrapolated.
>
> And I forgot to mention the vast amounts of money thrown away by the
> idle poor on international travel, a wholly unnecessary expense which
> benefits only the overseas gypsies. And the airlines, I suppose.
>>
>>that would only increases prices further, as sellers and landlords will
>>be able to charge even more.
>>
> No, because there would be less demand.
>>>
>
> And, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And death
> duties?

I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they together
can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something similar
happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage earners.

As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who are
only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
to the bottom.

On 2024-02-09, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:12:50 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-02-04, Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> wrote:
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>
** snip **
>>>
>>> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful owner-occupier
>>> is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
>>> rental longer.
>>
>>No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
>>loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.
>>
>>we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
>>mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
>>construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.
>>
> All get Federal government secretly paying their rent!
> Went to Edmondson Park Service Centre, no street signs, asked around
> six people what street this is all "I can;t speak English"
>
> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
> But most politicians use this scam.
>
> Asylum seekers need to be housed in compounds till the at least have a
> reasonable amount of English and answer qustions about our Lords
> "Sermon on the Mount"
><https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/sermon-on-mount_bible/>
> or https://t.ly/4H-f3

Yes, I've wondered how those unskilled immigrants were able
to afford houses that I, a full time white collar professional
could not afford. Its quite dispiriting to go to all this
effort to contribute to society, only to have to then be
asked to supports others who aren't working to get ahead of
you.

On 2024-02-08, Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> wrote:
> On 9/02/2024 12:12 am, Borax Man wrote:
>> On 2024-02-04, Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> wrote:
> snip
>>> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful owner-occupier
>>> is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
>>> rental longer.
>>
>> No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
>> loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.
>>
>> we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
>> mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
>> construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.
>
> I'm not a fan of our immigration policies given the limitations imposed
> by the nature of our ancient fragile landscape but unfortunately much of
> what you call "insane immigration" and "dumb population policy" is what
> drives our economy, fills needed skills shortages and provides workers
> for jobs native born Australians aren't prepared to do.
>
> If you believe me, google it as there is lots of information out there
> to support what I've said.
I've heard this argument over and over again, but I don't buy it.

I'm speaking from experience, having had to hire people myself.

All too often, I've worked alongside with visa workers who are
doing jobs I *KNOW* there are local candidates.
The skills shortage is overblown to a large degree. It is
more employers being lazy, cheap, or just not caring. In
my 20+ year career in a skilled profession, "we can't find a
skilled person" was almost always down to the employer failing
to either recruit correctly, HR not understanding requirements,
stupid requirements which exclude otherwise good candidates,
poor pay or conditions. The last job I tried to fill, the
position was only advertised on linkedin, nowhere else.
NOWHERE ELSE. A multinational company, and they wouldn't
spring a few hundred bucks to advertise on seek. Then HR
cut out most of the candidates, despite not really knowing
what the position involves.

All we've got from unfettered immigration was increased
disparity between the haves and have nots, overcrowding,
traffic, stagnant wages, unaffordable housing and a reversal
of the trend where one generation could be better off
than the one that preceded it.

If immigration drove our economy to where it is today,
one must be incredibly self-unaware to crow about these
results.

On 2024-02-03, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> On 4/02/2024 9:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights. Expect to see a reduction in
>> this benefit in the near future.
>>
>> The benefits of this tax break has not reduced property prices nor
>> rent levels. Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!
>>
>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!
>>
>> BAH!
>>
>
> **Negative gearing is a legitimate form of tax minimisation. It is
> unlikely to be changed any time soon. However, what does need to be
> addressed is the giant rort known as 'capital gains discount'. This
> appallingly badly designed structure favours those investing housing
> over all other forms of investment. Thanks John Howard for setting the
> scene for insane housing price rises.
>

Negative Gearing is legal, but not legitimate. It is a burden on the
tax payers to correct what is a bad investment on the investors part.
The fact you get ALL your taxable income reduced makes it a rort.
Buying an investment property is NOT a business. As an investor, you
should be calculating the ROI, and determining the value of the asset
by the income it brings in. NG "allows" property investors to overpay
for the property. I'm not subsidising landlords.

Negative Gearing should go, as should the CGT. Whinging investors can
choose to invest elsewhere. Australia has been run as a sheltered
workshop for property investors too long. We've created a culture
where we coddle and patronise property investors to our detriment.

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:24:11 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:

> On 9/02/2024 12:40 pm, Ördög wrote:
>> Petz sends urgent advisory from his alternate Universe
>> /snip lots of crap/
>
>
>>> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
>> Strangely enough, you are quite right on that issue.
>>
>>> But most politicians use this scam.
>> I have spoken too soon. :-(

> :-)))))))

Why have you got so many chins, cowface ?

>> Alas, that is rubbish. Capitalists politicians do what capitalism
>> allows...using laws and regulations to their own advantage...just look
>> at Voldemort Gestapo Dutton's real estate portfolios.
>
> Which can be seen here:
> https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/03_Senators_and_Members/32_Members/Register/47P/CF/Dutton_47P.pdf?la=en&hash=E1230B4D19AD2F2E98544BCC3F3165BF18177B20

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 18:53:12 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-02-06, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 09:45:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dunno, doubt he would risk another broken promise.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Expect to see a reduction in this benefit in the near future.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlikely.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The benefits of this tax break has not
>>>>>>>> reduced property prices nor rent levels.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was never intended to but it certainly
>>>>>>> does increase the available rental stock.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>>>>>>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and
>>>>>>>> investment,
>>>>>>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing like with negative gearing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BAH!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fuck off sheeple.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I won't.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, the dogs are off their chains.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also we're being softened up for a vacancytax, where unused sites
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> incur a tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fantasy
>>>>>
>>>>>> Single-person households will have to pay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even Albo isnt THAT stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Much like the window tax of the 1700s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing even remotely like.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Asian owners of empty high-rise towers expect this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant to what happens here.
>>>>
>>>> I remember the governor of the reserve bank commenting that if people
>>>> could double up and live several to a house, then much of the problem
>>>> could be solved. Too right. There used to be granny flats, and
>>>> granny could take care of the kids while mummy went to work.
>>>> So....
>>>> Pressure off housing.
>>>> Pressure off day care.
>>>> Pressure off aged care.
>>>> Pressure off we poor struggling taxpayers!
>>>>
>>>> Indeed the solution would be for interest rates to go MUCH higher so
>>>> forcing the idle poor to cohabit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Did the governor of the reserve bank really say something so braindead?
>>
>> He said only "if people lived together" there would less pressure on
>> housing. I have extrapolated.
>>
>> And I forgot to mention the vast amounts of money thrown away by the
>> idle poor on international travel, a wholly unnecessary expense which
>> benefits only the overseas gypsies. And the airlines, I suppose.
>>>
>>> that would only increases prices further, as sellers and landlords will
>>> be able to charge even more.
>>>
>> No, because there would be less demand.
>>>>
>>
>> And, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And death
>> duties?

> I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
> the price of housing.

You are wrong in our case.

> If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
> by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
> can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
> per dwelling

Doesnt happen much here.

> effectively increases what the household can bear
> in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
> to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they together
> can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something similar
> happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage earners.

> As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who are
> only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
> who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
> to the bottom.

Fantasy

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 18:56:05 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2024-02-09, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:12:50 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-02-04, Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> wrote:
>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>
> ** snip **
>>>>
>>>> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful
>>>> owner-occupier
>>>> is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
>>>> rental longer.
>>>
>>> No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
>>> loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.
>>>
>>> we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
>>> mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
>>> construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.
>>>
>> All get Federal government secretly paying their rent!
>> Went to Edmondson Park Service Centre, no street signs, asked around
>> six people what street this is all "I can;t speak English"
>>
>> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
>> But most politicians use this scam.
>>
>> Asylum seekers need to be housed in compounds till the at least have a
>> reasonable amount of English and answer qustions about our Lords
>> "Sermon on the Mount"
>> <https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/sermon-on-mount_bible/>
>> or https://t.ly/4H-f3

> Yes, I've wondered how those unskilled immigrants were able
> to afford houses that I, a full time white collar professional
> could not afford.

They stack them in 10 deep.

> Its quite dispiriting to go to all this
> effort to contribute to society, only to have to then be
> asked to supports others who aren't working

True.

> to get ahead of you.

Fantasy

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:09:49 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2024-02-08, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> wrote:
>> On 9/02/2024 12:12 am, Borax Man wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-04, Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> wrote:
>> snip
>>>> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful
>>>> owner-occupier
>>>> is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
>>>> rental longer.
>>>
>>> No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
>>> loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.
>>>
>>> we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
>>> mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
>>> construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.
>>
>> I'm not a fan of our immigration policies given the limitations imposed
>> by the nature of our ancient fragile landscape but unfortunately much of
>> what you call "insane immigration" and "dumb population policy" is what
>> drives our economy, fills needed skills shortages and provides workers
>> for jobs native born Australians aren't prepared to do.
>>
>> If you believe me, google it as there is lots of information out there
>> to support what I've said.
> I've heard this argument over and over again, but I don't buy it.
>
> I'm speaking from experience, having had to hire people myself.
>
> All too often, I've worked alongside with visa workers who are
> doing jobs I *KNOW* there are local candidates.
> The skills shortage is overblown to a large degree. It is
> more employers being lazy, cheap, or just not caring. In
> my 20+ year career in a skilled profession, "we can't find a
> skilled person" was almost always down to the employer failing
> to either recruit correctly, HR not understanding requirements,
> stupid requirements which exclude otherwise good candidates,
> poor pay or conditions. The last job I tried to fill, the
> position was only advertised on linkedin, nowhere else.
> NOWHERE ELSE. A multinational company, and they wouldn't
> spring a few hundred bucks to advertise on seek. Then HR
> cut out most of the candidates, despite not really knowing
> what the position involves.

> All we've got from unfettered immigration

It isnt unfettered and hasnt ever been.

> was increased
> disparity between the haves and have nots,

Bullshit.

> overcrowding, traffic, stagnant wages,

Bullshit.

> unaffordable housing

Bullshit.

> and a reversal
> of the trend where one generation could be better off
> than the one that preceded it.

More bullshit.

> If immigration drove our economy to where it is today,

Of course it did.

> one must be incredibly self-unaware to crow about these
> results.

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:18:49 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2024-02-03, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/02/2024 9:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights. Expect to see a reduction in
>>> this benefit in the near future.
>>>
>>> The benefits of this tax break has not reduced property prices nor
>>> rent levels. Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!
>>>
>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!
>>>
>>> BAH!
>>>
>>
>> **Negative gearing is a legitimate form of tax minimisation. It is
>> unlikely to be changed any time soon. However, what does need to be
>> addressed is the giant rort known as 'capital gains discount'. This
>> appallingly badly designed structure favours those investing housing
>> over all other forms of investment. Thanks John Howard for setting the
>> scene for insane housing price rises.

> Negative Gearing is legal, but not legitimate.

Bullshit on that last.

> It is a burden on the
> tax payers to correct what is a bad investment on the investors part.

More bullshit.

> The fact you get ALL your taxable income reduced makes it a rort.

More bullshit.

> Buying an investment property is NOT a business.

More bullshit.

> As an investor, you
> should be calculating the ROI, and determining the value of the asset
> by the income it brings in.

And that's what most do.

> NG "allows" property investors to overpay for the property.

More bullshit.

> I'm not subsidising landlords.

Yes you are and you get to like that or lump it.

> Negative Gearing should go,

Not gunna happen.

> as should the CGT.

Why should those who get their income that way not pay tax on that ?

> Whinging investors can choose to invest elsewhere.

You get no say on that, or anything else either.

> Australia has been run as a sheltered
> workshop for property investors too long.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> We've created a culture where we coddle andpatronise property investors
> to our detriment.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

Trolling ken's latest Usenet defecation

> Why have you got so many chins, cowface ?

* R E P L O N K *

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
<rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2024-02-06, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 09:45:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>><rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dunno, doubt he would risk another broken promise.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Expect to see a reduction in this benefit in the near future.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlikely.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The benefits of this tax break has not
>>>>>>>> reduced property prices nor rent levels.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was never intended to but it certainly
>>>>>>> does increase the available rental stock.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>>>>>>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>>>>>>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing like with negative gearing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BAH!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fuck off sheeple.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I won't.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, the dogs are off their chains.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also we're being softened up for a vacancytax, where unused sites will
>>>>>> incur a tax.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fantasy
>>>>>
>>>>>> Single-person households will have to pay.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even Albo isnt THAT stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Much like the window tax of the 1700s.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing even remotely like.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Asian owners of empty high-rise towers expect this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Irrelevant to what happens here.
>>>>
>>>> I remember the governor of the reserve bank commenting that if people
>>>> could double up and live several to a house, then much of the problem
>>>> could be solved. Too right. There used to be granny flats, and
>>>> granny could take care of the kids while mummy went to work.
>>>> So....
>>>> Pressure off housing.
>>>> Pressure off day care.
>>>> Pressure off aged care.
>>>> Pressure off we poor struggling taxpayers!
>>>>
>>>> Indeed the solution would be for interest rates to go MUCH higher so
>>>> forcing the idle poor to cohabit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Did the governor of the reserve bank really say something so braindead?
>>
>> He said only "if people lived together" there would less pressure on
>> housing. I have extrapolated.
>>
>> And I forgot to mention the vast amounts of money thrown away by the
>> idle poor on international travel, a wholly unnecessary expense which
>> benefits only the overseas gypsies. And the airlines, I suppose.
>>>
>>>that would only increases prices further, as sellers and landlords will
>>>be able to charge even more.
>>>
>> No, because there would be less demand.
>>>>
>>
>> And, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And death
>> duties?
>
>I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
>the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
>by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
>can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
>per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
>in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
>to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they together
>can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something similar
>happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage earners.
>
>As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who are
>only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
>who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
>to the bottom.
>

I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have to be
all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in half.

Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in the
old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're throwing
money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that Keynesian
drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money would
stimulate investment in manufacturing.

The Chinese are still laughing!

In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth bank
which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious competitor
to the other round-table sharks.

But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry too
early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less one
spends) and save, save, save.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>>> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-02-06, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 09:45:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dunno, doubt he would risk another broken promise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Expect to see a reduction in this benefit in the near future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unlikely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The benefits of this tax break has not
>>>>>>>>> reduced property prices nor rent levels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was never intended to but it certainly
>>>>>>>> does increase the available rental stock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and
>>>>>>>>> investment,
>>>>>>>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing like with negative gearing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BAH!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fuck off sheeple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I won't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, the dogs are off their chains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also we're being softened up for a vacancytax, where unused sites
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> incur a tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fantasy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Single-person households will have to pay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even Albo isnt THAT stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much like the window tax of the 1700s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing even remotely like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Asian owners of empty high-rise towers expect this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant to what happens here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember the governor of the reserve bank commenting that if people
>>>>> could double up and live several to a house, then much of the problem
>>>>> could be solved. Too right. There used to be granny flats, and
>>>>> granny could take care of the kids while mummy went to work.
>>>>> So....
>>>>> Pressure off housing.
>>>>> Pressure off day care.
>>>>> Pressure off aged care.
>>>>> Pressure off we poor struggling taxpayers!
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed the solution would be for interest rates to go MUCH higher so
>>>>> forcing the idle poor to cohabit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Did the governor of the reserve bank really say something so
>>>> braindead?
>>>
>>> He said only "if people lived together" there would less pressure on
>>> housing. I have extrapolated.
>>>
>>> And I forgot to mention the vast amounts of money thrown away by the
>>> idle poor on international travel, a wholly unnecessary expense which
>>> benefits only the overseas gypsies. And the airlines, I suppose.
>>>>
>>>> that would only increases prices further, as sellers and landlords
>>>> will
>>>> be able to charge even more.
>>>>
>>> No, because there would be less demand.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> And, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And death
>>> duties?
>>
>> I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
>> the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
>> by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
>> can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
>> per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
>> in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
>> to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they together
>> can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something similar
>> happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage earners.
>>
>> As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who are
>> only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
>> who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
>> to the bottom.

> I might be missing something,

As always

> but why does negative gearing have to be all or nothing? A simple
> reform would be to cut the benefit in half.

But would inevitably make the lack of housing worse, stupid.

And even Albo isnt actually stupid enough to be seen
to have lied about two separate things which are so
important to so many in the election campaign.

> Of course buying a house has always been difficult,

Bullshit, MUCH easier previously.

> although in the old days the banks required 30% deposit

Bullshit.

> whereas now they're throwing money at the lender.

Bullshit.

> This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy Reaganunleashed the banks
> to become speculators.

More bullshit, no yanks ever had any say on how our banks operate.

> And that Keynesian drone Greenspan who thought flooding Americawith
> borrowed money would stimulate investment in manufacturing.

He never thought anything of the sort. Manufacturing
had been only a minor part of the yank economy for
a long time by then.

> The Chinese are still laughing!

Nothing to do with Greenspan or banks.

> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealthbank
> which more sensibly might have been retained as a seriouscompetitor to
> the other round-table sharks.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don'tmarry too
> early, hold down two or more jobs (the moreone works, the less one
> spends) and save, save, save.

Bullshit they do when the interest rate paid doesnt
even come close ot the inflation rate, stupid.

Investing makes a hell of a lot more sense than saving, stupid.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100
Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
> >><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
*sip*

> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And death
> >> duties?
> >
> >I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
> >the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
> >by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
> >can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
> >per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
> >in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
> >to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they together
> >can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something similar
> >happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage earners.
> >
> >As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who are
> >only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
> >who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
> >to the bottom.
> >
>
> I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have to be
> all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in half.
>
> Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in the
> old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're throwing
> money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
> Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that Keynesian
> drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money would
> stimulate investment in manufacturing.
>
> The Chinese are still laughing!
>
> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth bank
> which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious competitor
> to the other round-table sharks.
>
> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry too
> early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less one
> spends) and save, save, save.
>

Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowing businesses to
establish themselves, in particular during the early stages where they
are not yet at a profit. My argument is that the application of this
concession to housing doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business. The second
problem is the claim that all your income falls within the scope. It
could make sense to say that income from the property itself, can be
under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?

I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable tax
concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the expenses
from the intial purchase. At some point this situation will change.
The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly, especially when
the investor is buying an already built house. We treat these two
scenarios as synonymous when they aren't. I see Negative Gearing as a
"freebie" to investors, to buy votes, for self interest (politicians
often have investment properties) and to prop up the market. I could
be swayed to support Negative Gearing for housing, when the investor
is also the builder.

Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property* to rent
out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset at a known
price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be. If they
are buying the asset, which has already been created, for passive
income, and they are offering a purchase price which does not allow a
profitable ROI, then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota. This it where
it becomes grossly unfair. That investor that bought the house on my
street, only to rent it out, not only outbid others who wanted to buy
it, but can claim a tax concession on any income, because they CHOSE
to pay a high price.

This ultimately inflates property prices, because if Negative Gearing
was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger loss and would be
compelled not to value the property so highly. The whole point of
Capitalism is that we discover the true price of an object. You can
calculate the true value of an investment property based on ROI from
rental, and that value must be less than the income obtained from
renting it out in order for it to be profitable. If the house must be
purchased at $560K or less in order to be profitable when you rent it
out, then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial decisions.

--

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:23:00 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100
> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>> >><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> *sip*
>
>> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And
>> death
>> >> duties?
>> >
>> >I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
>> >the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
>> >by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
>> >can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
>> >per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
>> >in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
>> >to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they together
>> >can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something similar
>> >happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage
>> earners.
>> >
>> >As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who are
>> >only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
>> >who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
>> >to the bottom.
>> >
>>
>> I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have to be
>> all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in half.
>>
>> Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in the
>> old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're throwing
>> money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
>> Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that Keynesian
>> drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money would
>> stimulate investment in manufacturing.
>>
>> The Chinese are still laughing!
>>
>> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth bank
>> which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious competitor
>> to the other round-table sharks.
>>
>> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry too
>> early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less one
>> spends) and save, save, save.

> Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowingbusinesses to establish
> themselves, in particularduring the early stages where they are not yet
> at a profit.

You are wrong about that. If there is no
profit, there is no income to negative gear.

You are confusing negative gearing and a business
being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.

> My argument is that the application of this concessionto housing
> doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
> your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.

Being a landlord is a business, stupid.

> The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within the
> scope.

There is no such claim.

> It could make sense to say that income from the property itself, canbe
> under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?

There is no tax deduction against the income from the property itself.

What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
from the property against your other taxable income.

> I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable tax
> concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
> removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the expenses
> from the intial purchase.

That's not negative gearing.

> At some point this situation will change.

Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
of their hobby.

> The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,

Of course it does with a holiday house that you sometimes
rent out when you arent using it yourself.

> especially when the investor is buying an already built house. We treat
> these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.

Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.

> I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,

You can make the same stupid claim about not having
to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.

> for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)

Because they are some of the better pain in society.

> and to prop up the market.

The market doesnt need propping up.

> I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the
> investor is also the builder.

No one cares what you could be swayed to support.

Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
property available for those who can not or not yet afford
to buy the property they are living in.

> Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property* torent
> out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
> price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.

Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.

> If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for
> passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does not
> allow a profitable ROI,

Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.

> then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
> the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.

Pity about the need for more rental housing.

> This it where it becomes grossly unfair.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it out,
> not only outbid others who wanted to buy
> it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they CHOSE to
> pay a high price.

And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.

> This ultimately inflates property prices, because if NegativeGearing
> was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger lossand would be
> compelled not to value the property so highly.

And the house would not be available to someone who needs to rent.

> The whole point of Capitalism is that we discover the true price of an
> object.

BULLSHIT. There never is any such animal as a true price.

> You can calculate the true value of an investment property

There is no such animal.

> based on ROI from rental, and that valuemust be less than the income
> obtained from
> renting it out in order for it to be profitable.

Not necessarily, particularly when the property
is purchased because you have decided the
capital gain will be what matters as it often is.

> If the house must be purchased at $560K or lessin order to be
> profitable when you rent it out,

That is fanciful in the current market.

> then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
> Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial decisions.

It isnt necessarily a bad financial decision, stupid.

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:56:05 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
<rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2024-02-09, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:12:50 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2024-02-04, Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> wrote:
>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>
>** snip **
>>>>
>>>> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful owner-occupier
>>>> is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
>>>> rental longer.
>>>
>>>No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
>>>loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.
>>>
>>>we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
>>>mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
>>>construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.
>>>
>> All get Federal government secretly paying their rent!
>> Went to Edmondson Park Service Centre, no street signs, asked around
>> six people what street this is all "I can;t speak English"
>>
>> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
>> But most politicians use this scam.
>>
>> Asylum seekers need to be housed in compounds till the at least have a
>> reasonable amount of English and answer qustions about our Lords
>> "Sermon on the Mount"
>><https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/sermon-on-mount_bible/>
>> or https://t.ly/4H-f3
>
>Yes, I've wondered how those unskilled immigrants were able
>to afford houses that I, a full time white collar professional
>could not afford. Its quite dispiriting to go to all this
>effort to contribute to society, only to have to then be
>asked to supports others who aren't working to get ahead of
>you.
>
Thre have been hushed up reports where Moslems get multiple wives and
CES gives them each a housing Commision house which they in turn rent
out, isn't that nice of him

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:59:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:23:00 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100
>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>>> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>>> >><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> *sip*
>>
>>> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And
>>> death
>>> >> duties?
>>> >
>>> >I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
>>> >the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
>>> >by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
>>> >can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
>>> >per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
>>> >in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
>>> >to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they together
>>> >can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something similar
>>> >happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage
>>> earners.
>>> >
>>> >As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who are
>>> >only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
>>> >who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
>>> >to the bottom.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have to be
>>> all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in half.
>>>
>>> Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in the
>>> old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're throwing
>>> money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
>>> Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that Keynesian
>>> drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money would
>>> stimulate investment in manufacturing.
>>>
>>> The Chinese are still laughing!
>>>
>>> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth bank
>>> which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious competitor
>>> to the other round-table sharks.
>>>
>>> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry too
>>> early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less one
>>> spends) and save, save, save.
>
>> Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowingbusinesses to establish
>> themselves, in particularduring the early stages where they are not yet
>> at a profit.
>
>You are wrong about that. If there is no
>profit, there is no income to negative gear.
>
>You are confusing negative gearing and a business
>being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.
>
>> My argument is that the application of this concessionto housing
>> doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
>> your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.
>
>Being a landlord is a business, stupid.
>
>> The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within the
>> scope.
>
>There is no such claim.
>
>> It could make sense to say that income from the property itself, canbe
>> under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?
>
>There is no tax deduction against the income from the property itself.
>
>What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
> from the property against your other taxable income.
>
>> I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable tax
>> concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
>> removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the expenses
>> from the intial purchase.
>
>That's not negative gearing.
>
>> At some point this situation will change.
>
>Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
>a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
>that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
>of their hobby.
>
>> The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,
>
>Of course it does with a holiday house that you sometimes
>rent out when you arent using it yourself.
>
>> especially when the investor is buying an already built house. We treat
>> these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.
>
>Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.
>
>> I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,
>
>You can make the same stupid claim about not having
>to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.
>
>> for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)
>
>Because they are some of the better pain in society.
>
>> and to prop up the market.
>
>The market doesnt need propping up.
>
>> I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the
>> investor is also the builder.
>
>No one cares what you could be swayed to support.
>
>Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
>property available for those who can not or not yet afford
>to buy the property they are living in.
>
>> Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property* torent
>> out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
>> price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.
>
>Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.
>
>> If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for
>> passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does not
>> allow a profitable ROI,
>
>Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.
>
>> then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
>> the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.
>
>Pity about the need for more rental housing.
>
>> This it where it becomes grossly unfair.
>
>Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>
>> That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it out,
>> not only outbid others who wanted to buy
>> it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they CHOSE to
>> pay a high price.
>
>And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.
>
>> This ultimately inflates property prices, because if NegativeGearing
>> was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger lossand would be
>> compelled not to value the property so highly.
>
>And the house would not be available to someone who needs to rent.
>
>> The whole point of Capitalism is that we discover the true price of an
>> object.
>
>BULLSHIT. There never is any such animal as a true price.
>
>> You can calculate the true value of an investment property
>
>There is no such animal.
>
>> based on ROI from rental, and that valuemust be less than the income
>> obtained from
>> renting it out in order for it to be profitable.
>
>Not necessarily, particularly when the property
>is purchased because you have decided the
>capital gain will be what matters as it often is.
>
>> If the house must be purchased at $560K or lessin order to be
>> profitable when you rent it out,
>
>That is fanciful in the current market.
>
>> then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
>> Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial decisions.
>
>It isnt necessarily a bad financial decision, stupid.
>
The real or first trick is to register as a business and get ,.a Tax
Office Number now called a TFN (it's free)
<https://business.gov.au/registrations/register-for-taxes/tax-registration-for-your-business>
or https://t.ly/7Me4t
Do your tax online and do not be in a hurry to submit until yo hit the
one that gives the most refund you will be pleased maybe shocked.
Your can claim a awful lot of business expenses off your income.
--
Petzl
ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" One Nation.
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
“Everything that defines us is now an enemy,
so they attack national identity, they attack religious identity,
they attack gender identity, they attack family identity.
I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, woman, mother, no.
I must be citizen x, gender x, parent 1, parent 2.
I must be a number, because when I am only a number,
when I no longer have an identity or roots,
then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators.
: - Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:59:20 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:23:00 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100
> > Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
> >> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
> >> >><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > *sip*
> >
> >> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And
> >> death
> >> >> duties?
> >> >
> >> >I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
> >> >the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
> >> >by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
> >> >can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
> >> >per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
> >> >in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
> >> >to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they together
> >> >can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something similar
> >> >happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage
> >> earners.
> >> >
> >> >As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who are
> >> >only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
> >> >who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
> >> >to the bottom.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have to be
> >> all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in half.
> >>
> >> Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in the
> >> old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're throwing
> >> money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
> >> Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that Keynesian
> >> drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money would
> >> stimulate investment in manufacturing.
> >>
> >> The Chinese are still laughing!
> >>
> >> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth bank
> >> which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious competitor
> >> to the other round-table sharks.
> >>
> >> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry too
> >> early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less one
> >> spends) and save, save, save.
>
> > Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowingbusinesses to establish
> > themselves, in particularduring the early stages where they are not yet
> > at a profit.
>
> You are wrong about that. If there is no
> profit, there is no income to negative gear.
>
> You are confusing negative gearing and a business
> being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.
>

If they are working a job, have a share portfolio that pays dividends,
they are making an income. That attracts a tax. NG applies to this.

> > My argument is that the application of this concessionto housing
> > doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
> > your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.
>
> Being a landlord is a business, stupid.
>

Thats a stretch, really is a stretch. I'll ask the next landlord I
see for their ABN number then. Someone who has bought a second house
and lends it is a businessman now! Spare me...

> > The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within the
> > scope.
>
> There is no such claim.
>

> > It could make sense to say that income from the property itself, canbe
> > under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?
>
> There is no tax deduction against the income from the property itself.
>
> What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
> from the property against your other taxable income.
>

Thats how NG works. If you make a loss, that loss is deducted from
your taxable income. If you lose $20K, then your taxable income is
reduced by 20K, regardless of whether that taxable income comes from
your property or not.

So you can effectively lower the income tax you pay from your 9-5 job
through your "business" of renting out your second home.

This is not the same as carrying over losses, as may happen if you
sell shares at a loss, which would in later years be deducted from
capital gains.

> > I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable tax
> > concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
> > removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the expenses
> > from the intial purchase.
>
> That's not negative gearing.
>
> > At some point this situation will change.
>
> Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
> a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
> that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
> of their hobby.
>
> > The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,
>
> Of course it does with a holiday house that you sometimes
> rent out when you arent using it yourself.
>

This is a different scenario to buying up residential property in the
suburbs, outbidding those who want to buy to reside. People keep
bringing up exceptions to justify a different norm.

> > especially when the investor is buying an already built house. We treat
> > these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.
>
> Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.
>
> > I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,
>
> You can make the same stupid claim about not having
> to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.
>
> > for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)
>
> Because they are some of the better pain in society.
>
> > and to prop up the market.
>
> The market doesnt need propping up.
>

Yet it is propped up. We KNOW its propped up because when changes to
NG is proposed, or change to migration, people openly state that it
will impact (lower) prices.

> > I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the
> > investor is also the builder.
>
> No one cares what you could be swayed to support.
>
> Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
> property available for those who can not or not yet afford
> to buy the property they are living in.
>
> > Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property* torent
> > out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
> > price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.
>
> Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.
>

Again, the idea that its like buying a business is just preposterous, a cultural creation to coddle landlords. I may as well argue that having shares means I'm a businessman, or that I run a business selling my own labour to my employer. Why not.

Ridiculous.

> > If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for
> > passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does not
> > allow a profitable ROI,
>
> Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.
>

> > then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
> > the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.
>
> Pity about the need for more rental housing.
>
> > This it where it becomes grossly unfair.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>
> > That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it out,
> > not only outbid others who wanted to buy
> > it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they CHOSE to
> > pay a high price.
>
> And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.
>

Yes, provide rental housng to the person who would have otherwise been
able to buy it. Landlord outbids the first home buyer, then rents it
to the first home buyer claiming a NG tax concession because he
overpaid.

On 9/02/2024 7:09 pm, Borax Man wrote:
> On 2024-02-08, Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> wrote:
>> On 9/02/2024 12:12 am, Borax Man wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-04, Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> wrote:
>> snip
>>>> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful owner-occupier
>>>> is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
>>>> rental longer.
>>>
>>> No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
>>> loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.
>>>
>>> we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
>>> mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
>>> construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.
>>
>> I'm not a fan of our immigration policies given the limitations imposed
>> by the nature of our ancient fragile landscape but unfortunately much of
>> what you call "insane immigration" and "dumb population policy" is what
>> drives our economy, fills needed skills shortages and provides workers
>> for jobs native born Australians aren't prepared to do.
>>
>> If you believe me, google it as there is lots of information out there
>> to support what I've said.
> I've heard this argument over and over again, but I don't buy it.

It's a well researched fact.

> I'm speaking from experience, having had to hire people myself.
>
> All too often, I've worked alongside with visa workers who are
> doing jobs I *KNOW* there are local candidates.
> The skills shortage is overblown to a large degree. It is
> more employers being lazy, cheap, or just not caring. In
> my 20+ year career in a skilled profession, "we can't find a
> skilled person" was almost always down to the employer failing
> to either recruit correctly, HR not understanding requirements,
> stupid requirements which exclude otherwise good candidates,
> poor pay or conditions. The last job I tried to fill, the
> position was only advertised on linkedin, nowhere else.
> NOWHERE ELSE. A multinational company, and they wouldn't
> spring a few hundred bucks to advertise on seek. Then HR
> cut out most of the candidates, despite not really knowing
> what the position involves.

That's simply incompetence on the part of that company. Having been in
charge of executive employment at one stage of my career for an
organisation of 17,000 people my problem was my unit weeding out
applicants rather than finding them.
>
> All we've got from unfettered immigration was increased
> disparity between the haves and have nots, overcrowding,
> traffic, stagnant wages, unaffordable housing and a reversal
> of the trend where one generation could be better off
> than the one that preceded it.

And an economy that is known to benefit for that constant influx of
migrants regardless of your (or my) personal opinion about that constant
flow.

> If immigration drove our economy to where it is today,
> one must be incredibly self-unaware to crow about these
> results.

It's not about 'one' doing any crowing. It's about governments and
institutions being able to prove that economically, migrants provide an
economic benefit to the country.

On 9/02/2024 7:30 pm, ken wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:24:11 +1100, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/02/2024 12:40 pm, Ördög wrote:
>>> Petz sends urgent advisory from his alternate Universe
>>>  /snip lots of crap/
>>
>>
>>>> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
>>>  Strangely enough, you are quite right on that issue.
>>>
>>>> But most politicians use this scam.
>>>  I have spoken too soon. :-(
>
>> :-)))))))
>
> Why have you got so many chins, cowface ?

Now then little ken, do try to demonstrate some competence in the insult
department. That above effort from you just makes me think of you as an
intellectually inept, pimply faced 14 year old.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 15:44:58 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:59:20 +1100
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:23:00 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100
>> > Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>> >> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>> >> >><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > *sip*
>> >
>> >> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And
>> >> death
>> >> >> duties?
>> >> >
>> >> >I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
>> >> >the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
>> >> >by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
>> >> >can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
>> >> >per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
>> >> >in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
>> >> >to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they
>> together
>> >> >can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something
>> similar
>> >> >happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage
>> >> earners.
>> >> >
>> >> >As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who
>> are
>> >> >only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
>> >> >who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
>> >> >to the bottom.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have to
>> be
>> >> all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in half.
>> >>
>> >> Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in the
>> >> old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're throwing
>> >> money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
>> >> Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that Keynesian
>> >> drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money
>> would
>> >> stimulate investment in manufacturing.
>> >>
>> >> The Chinese are still laughing!
>> >>
>> >> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth
>> bank
>> >> which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious competitor
>> >> to the other round-table sharks.
>> >>
>> >> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry too
>> >> early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less one
>> >> spends) and save, save, save.
>>
>> > Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowing
>> > businesses to establish themselves, in particular
>> > during the early stages where they are not yet at a profit.

>> You are wrong about that. If there is no
>> profit, there is no income to negative gear.

>> You are confusing negative gearing and a business
>> being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.

> If they are working a job,

Most new businesses don't.

> have a share portfolio that pays dividends,

Most new businesses don't.

> they are making an income. That attracts a tax.NG applies to this.

Most new businesses don't.

>> > My argument is that the application of this concession
>> > to housing doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
>> > your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.

>> Being a landlord is a business, stupid.

> Thats a stretch, really is a stretch.

Nope.

> I'll ask the next landlord I see for their ABN number then.

You don't need an ABN to be a business.

> Someone who has bought a second house
> and lends it is a businessman now!

Always has been, and plenty have more than one too.

> Spare me...

No thanks, bullet in the back of the neck for someone as ignorant as you.

>> > The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within the
>> > scope.
>>
>> There is no such claim.
>>
>
>> > It could make sense to say that income from the property itself,
>> canbe
>> > under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?
>>
>> There is no tax deduction against the income from the property itself.

>> What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
>> from the property against your other taxable income.

> Thats how NG works.

What I said.

> If you make a loss, that loss is deducted from
> your taxable income. If you lose $20K, thenyour taxable income is
> reduced by 20K,

What I said.

> regardless of whether that taxable incomecomes from your property or
> not.

What I said.

> So you can effectively lower the income tax you pay from your9-5 job
> through your "business" of renting out your second home.

It isnt a second home if you rent it out all the time, its a business.

> This is not the same as carrying over losses,as may happen if you sell
> shares at a loss,

You can't carry over that loss, you pig ignorant clown.

> which would in later years bededucted from capital gains.

Not if it isnt realised, you pig ignorant clown.

>> > I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable tax
>> > concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
>> > removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the expenses
>> > from the intial purchase.
>>
>> That's not negative gearing.
>>
>> > At some point this situation will change.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
>> a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
>> that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
>> of their hobby.
>>
>> > The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,
>>
>> Of course it does with a holiday house that yousometimes rent out when
>> you arent using it yourself.

> This is a different scenario to buying up residential propertyin the
> suburbs, outbidding those who want to buy to reside.

Duh.

> People keep bringing up exceptions

That isnt an exception.

> to justify a different norm.

There is no 'norm'

>> > especially when the investor is buying an already built house. We >
>> treat these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.
>>
>> Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.
>>
>> > I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,
>>
>> You can make the same stupid claim about not having
>> to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.
>>
>> > for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)
>>
>> Because they are some of the better pain in society.
>>
>> > and to prop up the market.
>>
>> The market doesnt need propping up.

> Yet it is propped up.

Bullshit.

> We KNOW its propped up because when changesto NG is proposed, or change
> to migration, peopleopenly state that it will impact (lower) prices.

Bullshit.

>> > I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the
>> > investor is also the builder.
>>
>> No one cares what you could be swayed to support.
>>
>> Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
>> property available for those who can not or not yet afford
>> to buy the property they are living in.
>>
>> > Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property* torent
>> > out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
>> > price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.
>>
>> Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.

> Again, the idea that its like buying a business is just preposterous,

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 18:59:17 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:

> On 9/02/2024 7:30 pm, ken wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:24:11 +1100, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/02/2024 12:40 pm, Ördög wrote:
>>>> Petz sends urgent advisory from his alternate Universe
>>>> /snip lots of crap/
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
>>>> Strangely enough, you are quite right on that issue.
>>>>
>>>>> But most politicians use this scam.
>>>> I have spoken too soon. :-(
>>
>>> :-)))))))
>> Why have you got so many chins, cowface ?
>
> Now then little ken, do try to demonstrate some competence in the insult
> department.

Clearly something you can't manage, cow's arse.

> That above effort from you just makes me think

Obvious lie.

of you as an
> intellectually inept, pimply faced 14 year old.

Ditto.

Petz is floating in on GoonCon3+ clouds

/snip bucket loads of crap/

> Thre have been hushed up reports where Moslems get multiple wives and
> CES gives them each a housing Commision house which they in turn rent
> out, isn't that nice of him
>
You do realise Petz dear, that you could prevent such scary-outrage
visions and hallucinations by lowering somewhat your daily alcohol
intake. :-P :-P :-P

Furthermore, constantly immersing yourself in
eXed-Twitter/Facebook/Murdoch-media propagated racist
Xenophobia/Islamophobia scare- and hatemongering propaganda will
definitely rot your few still remaining functional brain cells. :-P
:-P :-P

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

On 11/02/2024 9:53 am, Ördög wrote:
> Petz is floating in on GoonCon3+ clouds
>
> /snip bucket loads of crap/
>
>> Thre have been hushed up reports where Moslems get multiple wives and
>> CES gives them each a housing Commision house which they in turn rent
>> out, isn't that nice of him
>>
> You do realise Petz dear, that you could prevent such scary-outrage
> visions and hallucinations by lowering somewhat your daily alcohol
> intake. :-P    :-P    :-P

I wonder what "CES" is? I can't think of any organisation with that
acronym which is involved in allocating housing.....
>
> Furthermore, constantly immersing yourself in
> eXed-Twitter/Facebook/Murdoch-media propagated racist
> Xenophobia/Islamophobia scare- and hatemongering propaganda will
> definitely rot your few still remaining functional brain cells.  :-P
> :-P    :-P
>

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 19:49:25 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 15:44:58 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:59:20 +1100
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:23:00 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100
> >> > Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
> >> >> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
> >> >> >><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > *sip*
> >> >
> >> >> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And
> >> >> death
> >> >> >> duties?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
> >> >> >the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
> >> >> >by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
> >> >> >can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
> >> >> >per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
> >> >> >in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
> >> >> >to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they
> >> together
> >> >> >can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something
> >> similar
> >> >> >happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage
> >> >> earners.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who
> >> are
> >> >> >only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
> >> >> >who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
> >> >> >to the bottom.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have to
> >> be
> >> >> all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in half.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in the
> >> >> old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're throwing
> >> >> money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
> >> >> Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that Keynesian
> >> >> drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money
> >> would
> >> >> stimulate investment in manufacturing.
> >> >>
> >> >> The Chinese are still laughing!
> >> >>
> >> >> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth
> >> bank
> >> >> which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious competitor
> >> >> to the other round-table sharks.
> >> >>
> >> >> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry too
> >> >> early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less one
> >> >> spends) and save, save, save.
> >>
> >> > Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowing
> >> > businesses to establish themselves, in particular
> >> > during the early stages where they are not yet at a profit.
>
> >> You are wrong about that. If there is no
> >> profit, there is no income to negative gear.
>
> >> You are confusing negative gearing and a business
> >> being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.
>
> > If they are working a job,
>
> Most new businesses don't.
>
> > have a share portfolio that pays dividends,
>
> Most new businesses don't.
>
> > they are making an income. That attracts a tax.NG applies to this.
>
> Most new businesses don't.
>
> >> > My argument is that the application of this concession
> >> > to housing doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
> >> > your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.
>
> >> Being a landlord is a business, stupid.
>
> > Thats a stretch, really is a stretch.
>
> Nope.
>
> > I'll ask the next landlord I see for their ABN number then.
>
> You don't need an ABN to be a business.
>
> > Someone who has bought a second house
> > and lends it is a businessman now!
>
> Always has been, and plenty have more than one too.
>
> > Spare me...
>
> No thanks, bullet in the back of the neck for someone as ignorant as you.
>
> >> > The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within the
> >> > scope.
> >>
> >> There is no such claim.
> >>
> >
> >> > It could make sense to say that income from the property itself,
> >> canbe
> >> > under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?
> >>
> >> There is no tax deduction against the income from the property itself.
>
> >> What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
> >> from the property against your other taxable income.
>
> > Thats how NG works.
>
> What I said.
>
> > If you make a loss, that loss is deducted from
> > your taxable income. If you lose $20K, thenyour taxable income is
> > reduced by 20K,
>
> What I said.
>
> > regardless of whether that taxable incomecomes from your property or
> > not.
>
> What I said.
>
> > So you can effectively lower the income tax you pay from your9-5 job
> > through your "business" of renting out your second home.
>
> It isnt a second home if you rent it out all the time, its a business.
>
> > This is not the same as carrying over losses,as may happen if you sell
> > shares at a loss,
>
> You can't carry over that loss, you pig ignorant clown.
>
> > which would in later years bededucted from capital gains.
>
> Not if it isnt realised, you pig ignorant clown.
>
> >> > I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable tax
> >> > concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
> >> > removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the expenses
> >> > from the intial purchase.
> >>
> >> That's not negative gearing.
> >>
> >> > At some point this situation will change.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
> >> a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
> >> that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
> >> of their hobby.
> >>
> >> > The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,
> >>
> >> Of course it does with a holiday house that yousometimes rent out when
> >> you arent using it yourself.
>
> > This is a different scenario to buying up residential propertyin the
> > suburbs, outbidding those who want to buy to reside.
>
> Duh.
>
> > People keep bringing up exceptions
>
> That isnt an exception.
>
> > to justify a different norm.
>
> There is no 'norm'
>
> >> > especially when the investor is buying an already built house. We >
> >> treat these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.
> >>
> >> Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.
> >>
> >> > I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,
> >>
> >> You can make the same stupid claim about not having
> >> to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.
> >>
> >> > for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)
> >>
> >> Because they are some of the better pain in society.
> >>
> >> > and to prop up the market.
> >>
> >> The market doesnt need propping up.
>
> > Yet it is propped up.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> > We KNOW its propped up because when changesto NG is proposed, or change
> > to migration, peopleopenly state that it will impact (lower) prices.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> >> > I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the
> >> > investor is also the builder.
> >>
> >> No one cares what you could be swayed to support.
> >>
> >> Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
> >> property available for those who can not or not yet afford
> >> to buy the property they are living in.
> >>
> >> > Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property* torent
> >> > out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
> >> > price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.
> >>
> >> Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.
>
> > Again, the idea that its like buying a business is just preposterous,
>
> Being a landlord is a business.
>
> > a cultural creation to coddle landlords.
>
> Not when the rental property is making a profit
> and only a completely incompetant landlord isnt
> doing that with the rental market so tight.
>
> > I may as well argue that having shares means I'm a businessman,
>
> Are you seriously trying to claim that no one
> does nothing but own property and renit it out ?
>
> Even you can't actually be THAT pig ignorant.
>
> > or that I run a business sellingmy own labour to my employer.
>
> Plenty of contractors do just that, you pig ignorant fool.
>
> And they need to have an ABN to do that.
>
> > Why not.
>
> Why not indeed.
>
> > Ridiculous.
>
> Your sig is sposed to be last with
> a line with just -- on it in front of it.
>
> >> > If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for
> >> > passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does not
> >> > allow a profitable ROI,
> >>
> >> Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.
> >>
> >
> >> > then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
> >> > the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.
> >>
> >> Pity about the need for more rental housing.
> >>
> >> > This it where it becomes grossly unfair.
> >>
> >> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
> >>
> >> > That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it out,
> >> > not only outbid others who wanted to buy
> >> > it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they CHOSE
> >> > to pay a high price.
>
> >> And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.
>
> > Yes, provide rental housng to the person whowould have otherwise been
> > able to buy it.
>
> Few renters are, fool.
>
> > Landlord outbids the first home buyer, thenrents it to the first home
> > buyer claiming aNG tax concession because he overpaid.
>
> They actually charge the rent that provides a decent
> return in the current very tight rental market, fool
>
> > We wouldn't need as many rental propertiesif housing wasn't hoarded by
> > investors.
>
> They aren't hoarded, they are rented out in the very tight rental market,
> fool.
>
> >> > This ultimately inflates property prices, because if NegativeGearing
> >> > was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger lossand would be
> >> > compelled not to value the property so highly.
> >>
> >> And the house would not be available to someone who needs to rent.
> >>
> >> > The whole point of Capitalism is that we discover the true price of
> >> an
> >> > object.
> >>
> >> BULLSHIT. There never is any such animal as a true price.
>
> > Then we may as well get the state to set theprice, their price as good
> > as any other right?
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
> >> > You can calculate the true value of an investment property
> >>
> >> There is no such animal.
> >>
> >> > based on ROI from rental, and that valuemust be less than the income
> >> > obtained from
> >> > renting it out in order for it to be profitable.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily, particularly when the property
> >> is purchased because you have decided the
> >> capital gain will be what matters as it often is.
> >>
> >> > If the house must be purchased at $560K or lessin order to be
> >> > profitable when you rent it out,
> >>
> >> That is fanciful in the current market.
> >>
> >> > then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
> >> > Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial decisions.
> >>
> >> It isnt necessarily a bad financial decision, stupid.
>
> > Then in that case, remove the tax concessions,
>
> And see the very tight rental market get even tighter, fool.
>
> > and let these people make smart decisions.
>
> That's what they do.
>
> > If they overborrow,
>
> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>
> > that is on them. If they decide atAuction to pay $X and make a loss,
>
> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>
> > that is on them. No one forces anyoneto invest money and make a loss,
>
> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>
> > especially property investors.
>
> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>
> > No one forces me to borrow money to buy shareswhere the yield won't
> > cover repayments + interest.
>
> You don't get to negatively gear in that situation, fool.
>
> > As a tax payer I vote against supporting this.
>
> And your vote is completelely irrelevant, just like you are.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:28:32 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 19:49:25 +1100
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 15:44:58 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:59:20 +1100
>> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:23:00 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100
>> >> > Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>> >> >> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>> >> >> >><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > *sip*
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax?
>> And
>> >> >> death
>> >> >> >> duties?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses,
>> affects
>> >> >> >the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price
>> determined
>> >> >> >by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the
>> market
>> >> >> >can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
>> >> >> >per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
>> >> >> >in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and
>> landlords
>> >> >> >to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they
>> >> together
>> >> >> >can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something
>> >> similar
>> >> >> >happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage
>> >> >> earners.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those
>> who
>> >> are
>> >> >> >only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as
>> those
>> >> >> >who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
>> >> >> >to the bottom.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have
>> to
>> >> be
>> >> >> all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in
>> half.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in
>> the
>> >> >> old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're
>> throwing
>> >> >> money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
>> >> >> Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that
>> Keynesian
>> >> >> drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money
>> >> would
>> >> >> stimulate investment in manufacturing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Chinese are still laughing!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth
>> >> bank
>> >> >> which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious
>> competitor
>> >> >> to the other round-table sharks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry
>> too
>> >> >> early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less
>> one
>> >> >> spends) and save, save, save.
>> >>
>> >> > Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowing
>> >> > businesses to establish themselves, in particular
>> >> > during the early stages where they are not yet at a profit.
>>
>> >> You are wrong about that. If there is no
>> >> profit, there is no income to negative gear.
>>
>> >> You are confusing negative gearing and a business
>> >> being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.
>>
>> > If they are working a job,
>>
>> Most new businesses don't.
>>
>> > have a share portfolio that pays dividends,
>>
>> Most new businesses don't.
>>
>> > they are making an income. That attracts a tax.NG applies to this.
>>
>> Most new businesses don't.
>>
>> >> > My argument is that the application of this concession
>> >> > to housing doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
>> >> > your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.
>>
>> >> Being a landlord is a business, stupid.
>>
>> > Thats a stretch, really is a stretch.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> > I'll ask the next landlord I see for their ABN number then.
>>
>> You don't need an ABN to be a business.
>>
>> > Someone who has bought a second house
>> > and lends it is a businessman now!
>>
>> Always has been, and plenty have more than one too.
>>
>> > Spare me...
>>
>> No thanks, bullet in the back of the neck for someone as ignorant as
>> you.
>>
>> >> > The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within
>> the
>> >> > scope.
>> >>
>> >> There is no such claim.
>> >>
>> >
>> >> > It could make sense to say that income from the property itself,
>> >> canbe
>> >> > under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?
>> >>
>> >> There is no tax deduction against the income from the property
>> itself.
>>
>> >> What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
>> >> from the property against your other taxable income.
>>
>> > Thats how NG works.
>>
>> What I said.
>>
>> > If you make a loss, that loss is deducted from
>> > your taxable income. If you lose $20K, thenyour taxable income is
>> > reduced by 20K,
>>
>> What I said.
>>
>> > regardless of whether that taxable incomecomes from your property or
>> > not.
>>
>> What I said.
>>
>> > So you can effectively lower the income tax you pay from your9-5 job
>> > through your "business" of renting out your second home.
>>
>> It isnt a second home if you rent it out all the time, its a business.
>>
>> > This is not the same as carrying over losses,as may happen if you
>> sell
>> > shares at a loss,
>>
>> You can't carry over that loss, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>> > which would in later years bededucted from capital gains.
>>
>> Not if it isnt realised, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>> >> > I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable
>> tax
>> >> > concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
>> >> > removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the
>> expenses
>> >> > from the intial purchase.
>> >>
>> >> That's not negative gearing.
>> >>
>> >> > At some point this situation will change.
>> >>
>> >> Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
>> >> a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
>> >> that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
>> >> of their hobby.
>> >>
>> >> > The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,
>> >>
>> >> Of course it does with a holiday house that yousometimes rent out
>> when
>> >> you arent using it yourself.
>>
>> > This is a different scenario to buying up residential propertyin the
>> > suburbs, outbidding those who want to buy to reside.
>>
>> Duh.
>>
>> > People keep bringing up exceptions
>>
>> That isnt an exception.
>>
>> > to justify a different norm.
>>
>> There is no 'norm'
>>
>> >> > especially when the investor is buying an already built house.
>> We >
>> >> treat these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.
>> >>
>> >> Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.
>> >>
>> >> > I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,
>> >>
>> >> You can make the same stupid claim about not having
>> >> to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.
>> >>
>> >> > for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)
>> >>
>> >> Because they are some of the better pain in society.
>> >>
>> >> > and to prop up the market.
>> >>
>> >> The market doesnt need propping up.
>>
>> > Yet it is propped up.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> > We KNOW its propped up because when changesto NG is proposed, or
>> change
>> > to migration, peopleopenly state that it will impact (lower) prices.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> >> > I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the
>> >> > investor is also the builder.
>> >>
>> >> No one cares what you could be swayed to support.
>> >>
>> >> Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
>> >> property available for those who can not or not yet afford
>> >> to buy the property they are living in.
>> >>
>> >> > Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property*
>> torent
>> >> > out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
>> >> > price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.
>> >>
>> >> Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.
>>
>> > Again, the idea that its like buying a business is just preposterous,
>>
>> Being a landlord is a business.
>>
>> > a cultural creation to coddle landlords.
>>
>> Not when the rental property is making a profit
>> and only a completely incompetant landlord isnt
>> doing that with the rental market so tight.
>>
>> > I may as well argue that having shares means I'm a businessman,
>>
>> Are you seriously trying to claim that no one
>> does nothing but own property and renit it out ?
>>
>> Even you can't actually be THAT pig ignorant.
>>
>> > or that I run a business sellingmy own labour to my employer.
>>
>> Plenty of contractors do just that, you pig ignorant fool.
>>
>> And they need to have an ABN to do that.
>>
>> > Why not.
>>
>> Why not indeed.
>>
>> > Ridiculous.
>>
>> Your sig is sposed to be last with
>> a line with just -- on it in front of it.
>>
>> >> > If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for
>> >> > passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does
>> not
>> >> > allow a profitable ROI,
>> >>
>> >> Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.
>> >>
>> >
>> >> > then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
>> >> > the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.
>> >>
>> >> Pity about the need for more rental housing.
>> >>
>> >> > This it where it becomes grossly unfair.
>> >>
>> >> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>> >>
>> >> > That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it
>> out,
>> >> > not only outbid others who wanted to buy
>> >> > it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they CHOSE
>> >> > to pay a high price.
>>
>> >> And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.
>>
>> > Yes, provide rental housng to the person whowould have otherwise been
>> > able to buy it.
>>
>> Few renters are, fool.
>>
>> > Landlord outbids the first home buyer, thenrents it to the first home
>> > buyer claiming aNG tax concession because he overpaid.
>>
>> They actually charge the rent that provides a decent
>> return in the current very tight rental market, fool
>>
>> > We wouldn't need as many rental propertiesif housing wasn't hoarded by
>> > investors.
>>
>> They aren't hoarded, they are rented out in the very tight rental
>> market,
>> fool.
>>
>> >> > This ultimately inflates property prices, because if
>> NegativeGearing
>> >> > was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger lossand would be
>> >> > compelled not to value the property so highly.
>> >>
>> >> And the house would not be available to someone who needs to rent.
>> >>
>> >> > The whole point of Capitalism is that we discover the true price
>> of
>> >> an
>> >> > object.
>> >>
>> >> BULLSHIT. There never is any such animal as a true price.
>>
>> > Then we may as well get the state to set theprice, their price as good
>> > as any other right?
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>> >> > You can calculate the true value of an investment property
>> >>
>> >> There is no such animal.
>> >>
>> >> > based on ROI from rental, and that valuemust be less than the
>> income
>> >> > obtained from
>> >> > renting it out in order for it to be profitable.
>> >>
>> >> Not necessarily, particularly when the property
>> >> is purchased because you have decided the
>> >> capital gain will be what matters as it often is.
>> >>
>> >> > If the house must be purchased at $560K or lessin order to be
>> >> > profitable when you rent it out,
>> >>
>> >> That is fanciful in the current market.
>> >>
>> >> > then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
>> >> > Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial
>> decisions.
>> >>
>> >> It isnt necessarily a bad financial decision, stupid.
>>
>> > Then in that case, remove the tax concessions,
>>
>> And see the very tight rental market get even tighter, fool.
>>
>> > and let these people make smart decisions.
>>
>> That's what they do.
>>
>> > If they overborrow,
>>
>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>
>> > that is on them. If they decide atAuction to pay $X and make a
>> loss,
>>
>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>
>> > that is on them. No one forces anyoneto invest money and make a
>> loss,
>>
>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>
>> > especially property investors.
>>
>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>
>> > No one forces me to borrow money to buy shareswhere the yield won't
>> > cover repayments + interest.
>>
>> You don't get to negatively gear in that situation, fool.
>>
>> > As a tax payer I vote against supporting this.
>>
>> And your vote is completelely irrelevant, just like you are.