Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Australian news and politics.

tsf said:
I don’t actually have a car now. But that’s only cause I don’t need one.

But if I did have a car I wouldn’t buy more than one.

It’s an indisputable fact that the tax breaks for rich have contributed to housing costs here and keep people out of stable housing. That’s not lazy, it’s reality.

I am not blaming people who do it. I am just saying it should stop now.

It’s just been a lazy way for boomers (not all) to make easier cash.
Click to expand...
Sure, you are definitely the exception to the rule when it comes to cars, or bikes, or tvs, or fridges, or clothes, or electronic gadgets etc etc.... But 99.9% of society clearly isn't....
 
  • Like
Reactions: LFC
Muz said:
Well you part own that company and share in it's wealth but putting aside that for a minute investing in the stock market, in general, doesn't keep people out of housing.
Click to expand...
Apart from the companies on the stock exchange who derive profit from perpetual personal debt, the generation of useless financial "products", military manufacturing, exploitative mining, manufacturing and trading etc etc....

Does investing in banking shares put people in housing quicker than a landlord fixing up a house and putting an add out on realestate.com?
 
boomers lol, I see and know of very well off and more mid 30's on movers and shakers amassing some amazing portfolio's.
Even influencers under 30 you see what they earn a month and I'm sure some are buying property and whatever.
In fact many have made it much quicker than boomers.
Please drop pointing towards one gen this involves a couple down as well in the modern age and other complications.
and yep thats what the system presents good luck to all who get there.
Stop ? just shifts to the next loop holes to the next argument and disagreement - human trait, you are never going to stop people stepping up more compared to others. As long as there's welfare for support damn good, if only no matter which gov governs didn't squander so much for our
Started since humans became and shifts how/what/where/when century to century.
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Sure, you are definitely the exception to the rule when it comes to cars, or bikes, or tvs, or fridges, or clothes, or electronic gadgets etc etc.... But 99.9% of society clearly isn't....
Click to expand...
im gonna blame my boomer Dad for giving me us a extra tv - bar fridge - some cash oh and a job for I couldn’t afford a lot despite cheaper rent and still trying to save.
 
tsf said:
This is my thinking.

I don’t blame him or think he is abusing people by doing it. It’s a system that was set up and people used it.

But it should change now.
Click to expand...
Ive got an easy solutions, EQUAL taxation on ALL investments regardless of stream.... keen to hear your thoughts?
 
Muz said:
The problem is of course the more homes you own the easier it is to buy other homes. Often you don't need a deposit.

So at an auction you have 20 cashed up investors vs 2 or 3 first home owners. They don't stand a chance.

At least when I was a a kid it was cheaper to rent than pay a mortgage. You could save the difference for the deposit to your own house.

Now, because no one can afford a home, rents are as high as a mortgage meaning (1) they're a great investment and (2) renters can't save a deposit trapping them in an endless cycle.
Click to expand...
100% I agree with you. Housing affordability has gone insane, but still see that as a separate issue.

But it is equally as easy to invest in other streams ONCE you are already capitalised...
 
  • Like
Reactions: LFC
LFC said:
boomers lol, I see and know of very well off and more mid 30's on movers and shakers amassing some amazing portfolio's.
Even influencers under 30 you see what they earn a month and I'm sure some are buying property and whatever.
In fact many have made it much quicker than boomers.
Please drop pointing towards one gen this involves a couple down as well in the modern age and other complications.
and yep thats what the system presents good luck to all who get there.
Stop ? just shifts to the next loop holes to the next argument and disagreement - human trait, you are never going to stop people stepping up more compared to others. As long as there's welfare for support damn good, if only no matter which gov governs didn't squander so much for our
Started since humans became and shifts how/what/where/when century to century.

im gonna blame my boomer Dad for giving me us a extra tv - bar fridge - some cash oh and a job for I couldn’t afford a lot despite cheaper rent and still trying to save.
Click to expand...
Shit you got a TV AND fridge??? hahahahah you really ARE loaded cheech...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: LFC
Muz said:
Depends if you think housing is a fundamental human right or an investment vehicle to build wealth while dooming a whole generation to not being able to afford a home.
Click to expand...
I think ACCESS to housing is a fundamental human right and see property/land ownership as a legitimate (and safe) way to accumulate equity while at the same time owning a tangible "thing" that cannot be taken away and can at the very least at least provide shelter from the rain :)

My right to be able to buy a house is no different than that which I promote to any other human in this world...
 
  • Like
Reactions: LFC
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Not if they rent out those houses to long term tenants... EVERYBODY deserves the right to housing no?
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more. If those investors didn't have those houses they'd go to home owners.

You can't frame this as some sort of altruism. 'Oh yes I own 20 homes but I lease them all to poor desperate tenants' as if you're doing them a favour.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
100% I agree with you. Housing affordability has gone insane, but still see that as a separate issue.

But it is equally as easy to invest in other streams ONCE you are already capitalised...
Click to expand...

How can it be a separate issue when the fact that people who own multiple properties are competing against people who just want one property?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tsf
Muz said:
Couldn't disagree more. If those investors didn't have those houses they'd go to home owners.

You can't frame this as some sort of altruism. 'Oh yes I own 20 homes but I lease them all to poor desperate tenants' as if you're doing them a favour.
Click to expand...
I did NOTHING of the sort. You guys are the ones framing this as some sort of morality lapse.. I bought an investment property because it was (at least to my way of thinking and based on what I have been taught) a safe investment for the fruits of my labour and a contribution to the economic prosperity of my family. My accumulation of assets, to me, means myself and my wife, our children, and with any luck their children and their children's children, will have no need of the social welfare our country so graciously supplies (and rightly so) to those less fortunate or less ambitious.

You call for reforms around taxation and negative gearing, Im not unsypathetic, but you must understand that poroerty investment is as legitamite (and ethical) a wealth creation tool to anything else.... Just because you chose a different path doesn't make you right...

Its up to the government to ensure its citizens have access to the fundamental basics of human living, NOT ME>.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Its up to the government to ensure its citizens have access to the fundamental basics of human living, NOT ME>.
Click to expand...

Yes it is up to the government which is why they should get rid of negative gearing and put a cap, or ban, on buying houses as an investment.

I never said YOU specifically. I was talking about people that pretend they're doing renters a favour. You invested in housing, good for you but it needs to stop.

Would you want your kids competing against people with multiple properties for their first home.

My 3 kids are early 20s so they're not in the market yet but they're already despairing. Even if i gave them 200k each and knocked a big fuck off lump of my super that would barely get them in the door. And that's not even considering kids that have to save up $200k and aren't given cash. Like how the fuck do you even save that much in a timely manner?
 
Muz said:
Other home owners not investors
Click to expand...
Thats just NOT true... "bricks and mortar" investment isnt something dreamt up in the 90s. My parents generation were competing against property developers buying inner suburbs blocks and tearing them down to built dog box flats as Im sure the generation before them was competing against the "aristocracy" of the time... way back to squatters days, it's always been a struggle, and the "competition" was never fair.

The fact that property has appreciated as an asset doesn't take away from the fact that it has ALWAYS been an asset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LFC
Muz said:
Yes it is up to the government which is why they should get rid of negative gearing and put a cap, or ban, on buying houses as an investment.

I never said YOU specifically. I was talking about people that pretend they're doing renters a favour. You invested in housing, good for you but it needs to stop.

Would you want your kids competing against people with multiple properties for their first home.

My 3 kids are early 20s so they're not in the market yet but they're already despairing. Even if i gave them 200k each and knocked a big fuck off lump of my super that would barely get them in the door. And that's not even considering kids that have to save up $200k and aren't given cash. Like how the fuck do you even save that much in a timely manner?
Click to expand...
I still dont understand how you can call on a government to put a "cap" on one kind of investment and not another. Would you consider it fair if the government limits how many shares you can have? Or how many ounces of gold you are allowed to buy and store in your basement? How many Monet's in your safety deposit box perhaps? Or wines in your cellar?

More than happy (personally) for the government to get rid of negative gearing provided the scrap land tax as well :)

My kids won't need to compete with anyone to get into the market as they will each have their starter home and I figure, being in their early teens, that would be more beneficial to them than me leaving them a hefty super lump or dividends or shares which are far more volatile. If the homes aren't to their liking or particularly glamorous they can very well just live in them and invest their hard earned to accumulate for their families and lifestyles.... like I did.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
I still dont understand how you can call on a government to put a "cap" on one kind of investment and not another. Would you consider it fair if the government limits how many shares you can have? Or how many ounces of gold you are allowed to buy and store in your basement? How many Monet's in your safety deposit box perhaps? Or wines in your cellar?

More than happy (personally) for the government to get rid of negative gearing provided the scrap land tax as well :)

My kids won't need to compete with anyone to get into the market as they will each have their starter home and I figure, being in their early teens, that would be more beneficial to them than me leaving them a hefty super lump or dividends or shares which are far more volatile. If the homes aren't to their liking or particularly glamorous they can very well just live in them and invest their hard earned to accumulate for their families and lifestyles.... like you and I did.
Click to expand...

I feel for you, its not an unreasonable thing to claim housing affordability is shit... but on the flip side, $500k still gets you a unit in Melbourne, im sure it does in Sydney too.... Maybe kids can start out using milk crates for furniture and 2nd hand couches... its not unheard of?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LFC
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top