Post by NoddyPost by Trevor WilsonPost by DarylPost by Trevor Wilson**And yet, economists have stated that the FIFTY PERCENT discount on
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-capital-gains-discount-
and- negative-gearing-benefit-the-rich-and-destroy-housing-
affordability/
Only if you believe an organisation that is run by lefties such as
Greens Senator Barbara Pollock and described by Wikipedia as "left leaning".
The 50% "discount" sounds huge but the reality is very different, it
fails to take into account inflation and cost of living increases
over very many years.
**Irrelevant.
ROTFL :)
Post by Trevor WilsonPost by DarylIn 1977 my house and land cost $41,000, sold it in 2019 for $480,000,
should I have been made to pay "income tax" on $220,000 which is 50%
of the capital gain, did I actual "gain" anything when the proceeds
for the sale were used to buy another house that cost more than what
the old house sold for?
**CGT does not apply to your primary residence. It only applies to a
property used to make money. IE: A rental.
CGT applies to anything you make money on. Real estate. Cars. Clothing.
People make money on the house they live in. Called capital gain. They
are not liable to pay CGT on their primary residence. Another term for
primary residence, Darren, is the house they live in.
Post by NoddyComputers. Anything. Buy stereo equipment at a bargain price and pass it
on for a tidy profit and you're obligated to declare the capital gain.
Not generally since you're talking about the second hand market. Make a
business out of selling used stuff on, say, EBay, and you might get
pinged for not having a second hand dealer's licence. FWIW, the
government is not interested in taxing you CGT for profits on used hifi
equipment. Too much effort and they have other ways of nailing you.
Post by NoddyEver done that Trev?
I daresay he would have done. Most of the time the tax department knows
what you're making in CGT and he is running a business so the tax man
cometh no matter what he does. I'm sure your dishonesty would have made
you *fail to declare* - it'd come naturally to you.
Post by NoddyPost by Trevor WilsonPost by DarylIts also nonsense that most rental properties are owned by billionaires,
**I never claimed they were. However, most rental properties are owned
by people who already own the property they live in. IOW: They are
making money from the rental property.
I have to ask Trevor. How the fuck would you know?
It's called statistics Darren. You know, *numbers*. That's where you
fall! Arithmetic is too complex for you.
Post by NoddyPost by Trevor WilsonPost by Darylthe reality is that most are owned by "mum and dad" investors that
own one or two properties, their purpose is to increase their wealth
so that when they retire they are self funded instead of relying on
the aged pension therefore saving the Govt lots of money.
**That's why we have compulsory superannuation. So people don't need
to distort the housing market by competing with first home buyers.
They just put their money into a super account.
ROTFL :) I don't know where you get this crap from, but it's comedy gold :)
That was my aim, the super was my investment, the house was where I
lived. The second (investment) house was the stress factor.
Post by NoddyCompulsory Super became a reality *not* because of any ridiculous notion
that it would deter people from investing in the housing market. In fact
investment in the housing market is actively encouraged on *both* sides
of the political fence as it helps to alleviate the problem of housing
demand outpacing supply. Compulsory Super came about as a means of
getting people to fund their own retirements and *off* old age pensions.
And the Libs have been trying to stymie that aim ever since.
Post by NoddyWe have an aging population that lives longer now than at any time
previously, while the retirement age has remained fairly constant. That
wasn't a big deal years ago, as the average Joe would work until they
were 65, retire on an old age pension and then shuffle off after 5 years
or so. Today we have people spending 25 years or more in retirement on a
government pension, and that's a situation that we simply cannot afford
to allow to continue as it's contributing to our *massive* welfare bill.
Housing has absolutely fuck all to do with that.
How would you know?
Post by NoddyPost by Trevor WilsonPost by DarylRemember that compulsory superannuation didn't start till 1991, many
older people don't have a lot of super so they needed another way to
increase their retirement savings, take the property investment
option away and the pension cost to the Govt will skyrocket.
**Nonsense. The problem we have now is related to the fact that first
home buyers have to compete with (usually older) home owners, that can
leverage their existing homes to buy an investment property. First
home owners have a tough job competing. It was not like that, until
Howard changed the rules.
Utter bullshit. It's been the case since Moses played back pocket for
the Israelite under 17's. First home buyers have *always* pushed shit up
hill when entering the market. The difference now is that people are
more reluctant to limit themselves to what they can realistically afford
than at any time previously.
Take yourself for example. How long have you lived in the home you do
now? If I remember correctly you once claimed that you've lived there
for some time, and that it's some way out from the CBD because that was
all you could afford back then. Not a mansion. Just a regular house in
an area you probably would have not chosen if there were other options
available to you, but you bought what you could afford because that's
what you were prepared to do.
Same as me. 18 years and I bought what I could afford because the *bank*
told me what I could borrow. That pretty much settled the choice between
house and mansion. My choice resulted in me being about 2 kilometres
further out and one suburb away from where I would have preferred to be.
Not a big deal in the overall scheme of things. And the next house was
in the preferred suburb and fitted my initial criteria.
Post by NoddyYou're old school. Me too. Daryl also. The one thing we all have in
common is that we were happy to take what we could get rather than to go
without and miss the bus.
I daresay Trevor has absolutely *nothing* in common with you - and nor
do I. For that I am eternally grateful
Post by NoddyIt's a different world out there today. Today everyone wants the
McMansion. They want all the high end trimmings. They want the lap pool
and the TV room and the double glazed windows and the ducted
refrigerated air conditioner, and they want it all in the best suburb
close to the best schools and a direct public transport route to the
city. And they want it all for 500 grand.
Do you see what I'm getting at? There's no shortage of housing. I can
take you to any number of sub 500 thousand buck properties tomorrow.
What you save on buying the house, you pay and pay and pay during the
period of ownership just getting to work. That's why, when I was buying
a house, one of my specifications was no more than a half hour drive to
work with both bus and train options. Nunawading fitted that option
perfectly. I also wanted an *established suburb* with no industry
nearby. Blackburn was the aim, Nunawading was the closest compromise.
Post by NoddyWhat there *is* is a shortage of people who are willing to accept that
their choices are limited by their financial capability, and the
acceptance of the fact that what they want and what they can afford are
not necessarily one and the same.
I'm sure the bank manager would enlighten them rather quickly.
Post by NoddyI know plenty of real estate investors. I'm involved in it myself. I can
tell you from experience that the first home buyer end of the market is
the *least* attractive arena for the property investor, as it's
generally the one that provides the lowest return on the dollar.
The first home buyer end of the market is not popular because, with a
rental property in those areas, you're renting to the nuff nuffs at the
low end of the market and they, in the main, don't look after your
asset. That might be linked to why they are renting. That's why I didn't
buy an investment property in suburbs like *Melton* - too many dead heads.
A friend of mine looked at that situation, then bought an investment
property in Alandale Street, Blackburn near the lake. He was able to
price the rent such that the nuff nuffs couldn't afford it and his
renters, in the main, were middle management types who did look after
his asset.
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)