• Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!

To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.

Already a member? Log in here.

The future of Australian property prices

Discussion in 'Business, Investment and Economics' started by Joe Blow, Nov 15, 2009.

  1. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    9,642
    Likes Received:
    735
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    It is entirely dependent on the social outcome, which is an unknown. IMO
     
  2. qldfrog

    qldfrog

    Posts:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    89
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Like new obsolete submarines for the next 20y...our government needs some engineers to get the BS out of technical issues lobbied by interest groups. My experience for gov in the last 10 y is give them a billion they will spend 2
     
    explod and sptrawler like this.
  3. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    8,105
    Likes Received:
    942
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Strongly agreed and I expect there would be a valid role for experts in other fields too for the same reason.
     
    qldfrog and sptrawler like this.
  4. satanoperca

    satanoperca

    Posts:
    1,223
    Likes Received:
    116
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    I still fail to see whatever you think is a solution, other than don't change anything as it might effect me.

    Current situation, one of highest privately indebted per ca pita in the world. where is all this debt, property, has it benefited society and community no. Is it productive? NO

    A recession is like a flood down a river, you cannot stop it and it is a natural cycle, cleans out the dead and replenishes with new. We havn't had one in 30 years, because govnuts keep damming the river (economic cycles).

    Sorry to say this old man, but it seems you are just dirty that you should have more out of life, and maybe that is the difference between us, I am happy living in great community with little, as I require only happiness, friends and family. Wealth as it seems to be defined is nothing to do with how much or how many properties you own.

    Again, housing is for shelter, one of the 4 basic requirements in life, and supporting any policy that will allow people to obtain it is a good thing.
     
  5. qldfrog

    qldfrog

    Posts:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    89
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    And my apologies for being off topic here.
     
  6. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    9,642
    Likes Received:
    735
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    I guess that is the difference between us, you see it as black and white, leave it as it is or do what Labor say's.

    I think there would be a mirriad of solutions, which can be enacted, and would be far more beneficial to Australian society.
    Also I'm not arrogant enough, to think I could come up with the best solution, however I do believe there are people smart enough to come up with better solutions.
    The first thing to work out is who you are trying to help, IMO Labor are helping the wealthy, with their proposal.
    Not only are they only going to make it, so that only the well off can invest in a property, they are even going to give them subsidies to rent them out as well as the negative gearing.

    https://theconversation.com/shortens-subsidy-plan-to-boost-affordable-housing-108881

    So not only can you negative gear, you can get an $8,500 payment, for 15 years.

    Now to me with my obvious limitations, I see that as just another perk for the rich.
    If the Government wants to help the poor, IMO it isn't by subsidising thier rent, it should be focused on helping people get into their own homes and off the rental trap.
    Subsidising their rent for 15 years, is like giving a gambler a discount at the casino, it just reinforces their vulnerable position.

    Why not have a system, where the Government lets low income workers, have a tax deduction on their home loans.
    Why not have a system, where if companies build low cost social housing, the Government puts in the $8500/PA for 15 years in a joint purchase plan with a low income earner. They just have a caveat on the property, that if it is sold, the Government gets a part or all of their contributions back. Then that money can be re lent to others less fortunate.

    Like I said, it isn't rocket science, it just depends on the outcome you want, poor people owning houses or Government rental subsidy for life.

    The only people who benefit greatly from Labors policy, is builders and people who have the money to afford to build a rental from scratch.
    The people who gain nothing, are low income earners and renters.
    Like I said only my opinion
    By the way I don't own a rental property, am retired and do share my house with extended family.
     
    willy1111 likes this.
  7. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    11,462
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Do you have an objection to helping the building industry ?

    All those brickies, electricians, tilers, plumbers, carpenters, painters etc that the industry employs ?

    Investors who bought established houses did nothing to help them, but that is what ng was designed for in the first place, to keep the building industry going as well as adding to the stock of homes.
     
    Darc Knight likes this.
  8. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    9,642
    Likes Received:
    735
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    I'm a bit shocked, you don't see my point of view, I thought you would agree. Oh well.
    I guess being rusted on causes anguish.:D
     
  9. qldfrog

    qldfrog

    Posts:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    89
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    [QUOTE="SirRumpole, post: 1009197, member: 58631",]

    ..it that is what ng was designed for in the first place, to keep the building industry going as well as adding to the stock of homes.[/QUOTE]
    I do not often disagree with sir rumpole but i naively thought that negative gearingvwas just the simpler fact that, if you do an investment..any investment business shares building and are taxed on profit, the basic rule of taxation is that you should be able to offset the cost of that investment.
    Otherwise investment diseappear

    As i note before, ng will only be used if it makes sense aka in a raising market or if rental income is worthwhile.why would you loose money purposely?
    To paraphrase
    You need to have your head checked if you pay more tax than you need,
    But similarly, you need to have a check if you are happy to loose money to pay less taxes.
    A lot of talking for a problem which may sort itself alone pretty quickly with a real estate crash
    My 2c
     
    sptrawler likes this.
  10. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    11,462
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    I might agree with your point of view if I knew what it was. :D

    You seem all over the shop. NG is there to increase housing supply to to provide a tax dodge for those who can afford their own house and someone else's as well.

    So if the government saves $3 billion a year by cutting down NG and puts that into subsidised rents as you suggested, would that be a bad thing ? (Maybe only if Labor thought of it. :roflmao:)
     
    Darc Knight and satanoperca like this.
  11. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    9,642
    Likes Received:
    735
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Fair enough, like I said, it depends what outcome you are chasing.:xyxthumbs
     
  12. PZ99

    PZ99 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Posts:
    1,674
    Likes Received:
    475
    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    If offsetting debt must be a burden on the taxpayer I'd rather it be for something more useful than housing.... such as small business debt. Business employs people. Housing doesn't.
     
    satanoperca and sptrawler like this.
  13. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    11,462
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Building and maintaining and renovating housing employs a lot of people and creates a lot of businesses.
     
  14. Darc Knight

    Darc Knight Investor not Trader

    Posts:
    924
    Likes Received:
    387
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
  15. willy1111

    willy1111

    Posts:
    226
    Likes Received:
    155
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Maybe it would be better used to help those who don't have a home get one rather than handing it to the investors investing in property.

    Like a government loan scheme in some form or another, or government owns x% of the house to be repaid when said house is sold...use it to get the pemanent renters out of the forever renters cycle as opposed to giving it to property investor.
     
    sptrawler likes this.
  16. PZ99

    PZ99 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Posts:
    1,674
    Likes Received:
    475
    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    Building, maintenance, renovations and associated retail all happen without the impetus of NG.

    Currently my taxes are paying for a scheme where investors go into huge housing debt where in some cases they sit on empty houses solely to deduct their income. Not much employment there.

    To me it's a bit self defeatist because all I'm really doing is sponsoring someone else's lifestyle.

    I'd rather sponsor employment directly by having that $3b a year go into lowering business tax.
     
  17. Darc Knight

    Darc Knight Investor not Trader

    Posts:
    924
    Likes Received:
    387
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    Pretty sure that trickle down economics theory isn't sound

    [​IMG]
     
    satanoperca likes this.
  18. PZ99

    PZ99 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Posts:
    1,674
    Likes Received:
    475
    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    If we are saying NG stimulates employment it's trickle down economics either way.
     
    satanoperca likes this.
  19. Darc Knight

    Darc Knight Investor not Trader

    Posts:
    924
    Likes Received:
    387
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    I think they said U.S. Comp Tax cuts won't flow through as much as people expect.
     
  20. PZ99

    PZ99 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Posts:
    1,674
    Likes Received:
    475
    Joined:
    May 13, 2015
    No argument there. I'm talking more about using the saved money to kill off payroll taxes or something similar. During the GFC the WA Liberal Govt rolled back payroll tax and it worked from what I read.

    Unlike the US Australia doesn't make anything anymore. So we are mostly a services economy and as such rely on small business. And they rely on keeping operating costs low.

    In my view it's a more productive way of dispersing tax revenue rather than paying for someone's housing debt (which then mostly goes to the banks anyway)
     
Loading...

Share This Page