|
Mola Yam posted:how about we argue about all the potential ways of addressing the housing crisis for another few political terms. Now you're talking. We should also start another $100b bank account that does nothing short term and skim a few bucks off the top annually to build enough home for a hundred people. That's the ticket.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
JBP posted:Aus Institute from memory. Please read the posts. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/Equality-Rights-Alliance-att-2.pdf quote:There is a strong argument to the effect that rather than necessarily increasing the supply of real
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
Numbers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 01:41
|
|
|
*guy who hasn't provided any sources for any of his claims* you got a source with some exact numbers in it buddy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 01:58
|
|
|
Jezza of OZPOS posted:*guy who hasn't provided any sources for any of his claims* you got a source with some exact numbers in it buddy? I'm not a computer. I know the number was 2% and that I read it in a submission to the parliament from Aus institute. I'd like to see some numbers if people can provide them rather than forsooth when mercury is in retrograde the prices may rise or fall it is inscrutable Doesn't matter anyway I guess. Rents won't fall when the cash rate does and everyone will be making profits. JBP fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
Can the government just build a giant skyscraper and give everyone a room.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:13
|
|
|
just listen to Alan Kohler for an hour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiA3Lku-3v0
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:37
|
|
|
Paracausal posted:well its lucky they're applying the law as passed by elected officials that empowers them to do so! I don't understand this situation. On some reports I've seen them just talk about wanting 'graphic videos' banned, which I would assume was already banned from twitters TOS?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 03:01
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:I don't understand this situation. On some reports I've seen them just talk about wanting 'graphic videos' banned, which I would assume was already banned from twitters TOS? Lol, no, Elon scrapped a lot of that stuff when he came in, along with the content moderation team that policed it
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 03:06
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:twitters TOS? lol The injunction is specifically directing that simply geoblocking Australian IPs from seeing the material which was sourced from an Australian livestream, of an Australian doing a very violent crime (the kid cut his own fingers off from stabbing the priest) is not enough of a step to stop Australians from accessing it and so demanding it be taken down until the hearing was seen as the only step to enforce the law. https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/whats-on/online-safety-act The logical next step if Twitter doesn't comply, is to direct ISPs to block access to it. Elon was happy to bend over backwards to appease Modi and Erdogan, no one should pretend he won't do it
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 03:09
|
|
|
JBP posted:It's easy to be a landlord losing less money. Increase the rent. A big supporting pillar of this argument is that you and a significant number of others are currently charging less than the market rates apparently?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 03:44
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:A big supporting pillar of this argument is that you and a significant number of others are currently charging less than the market rates apparently? The market rate is going up 4% a month, so probably. I'm just at the point where I'm about to buy what people term a "forever home", but my strategy is to keep my apartment for retirement and take win on the house to stop working at 65 on the dot and play Warhammer all day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 03:59
|
|
|
Negative gearing is in line with other tax deductions in that you deduct from your income any costs of getting that income. I don’t think it has a massive impact on the decision to invest in property but if you took it away from people who buy existing properties you would funnel a lot more investment into new builds. I think the CGT discount is the big driver of investing in property, and reverting back to indexation for existing assets would be a great incentive to invest in new builds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
we should still remove it even if it has zero impact on house prices immediately because it's costing all of us many billions just to line the pockets of property investors. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/defau...J8H8PP0_-NWGIAH
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 04:20
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:Negative gearing is in line with other tax deductions in that you deduct from your income any costs of getting that income. I don’t think it has a massive impact on the decision to invest in property but if you took it away from people who buy existing properties you would funnel a lot more investment into new builds. I agree. Negative gearing existed for yonks without being noticed, it was only when you could collect massive wins from property with the change to CGT that it started to get used widely. Which is why I don't see negative gearing as anything more than a tiktok flamewar special. CGT is what needs to go, because it will cause investors to flee to better ground for speculation. I also think it's somewhat better having rentals held by heavily regulated individual investors than by corporations. JBP fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
shame JBP can’t negatively gear themselves out of being a bad poster
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 05:45
|
|
|
I just take posts like that as you agreeing with me. Particularly on this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 05:53
|
|
|
Australia's answer to three olives
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 05:54
|
|
|
The greens are bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 05:58
|
|
|
JBP posted:Which is why I don't see negative gearing as anything more than a tiktok flamewar special. Def gonna believe some schmuck on the internet, rather than all the economists and researchers who say its a big part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 06:29
|
|
|
NPR Journalizard posted:Def gonna believe some schmuck on the internet, rather than all the economists and researchers who say its a big part of the problem. You can use your own eyes to look at prices. If you look at the intro of CGT discounts by Howard the line goes straight up. CGT makes property an enticing speculative investment. Anyway I'll hopefully be able to use negative gearing a bit before the greens and teals can permanently secure the bag for olds
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 06:35
|
|
|
JBP posted:The market rate is going up 4% a month, so probably. Your inability to take a risk in your investment is not our problem. The rest of us pay for your tax benefit. Also this makes you a landlord. Everything you do is bad, evil, parasitic or all three.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 06:36
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Your inability to take a risk in your investment is not our problem. The rest of us pay for your tax benefit. I'm invested in Australian shares and have been my whole working life. You're not paying for anything either. I'm happy to be a landlord if it means security when I retire and not having to pay stamp duty/buy at 2050 prices to downsize. It's excellent in fact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 06:38
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Your inability to take a risk in your investment is not our problem. The rest of us pay for your tax benefit. What on earth are you talking about? The quoted post, unless I misunderstand it, just states that many owners are likely charging under market given the ongoing increase in costs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 06:43
|
|
|
It’s the combination of incentives for housing as a personal investment that is truly poisonous. CGT discount is definitely what makes negative gearing lucrative but there are other factors too - for example, weak tenant protections. It would be a lot harder to flip houses if you can’t evict tenants to sell. Basically 1 in 4 Australians own more than one property which is absolutely nuts and we need to both kill subsidies/incentives for that and work on making landlordism more unattractive for anyone but large scale institutional investors - remove the right to annual inspections, encourage longer leases where the tenant has more of an ability to break than the landlord, allow tenants to modify their properties, institute mandatory rules for rental properties that they must be energy efficient/insulated/cooled/heated, put caps on rental price increases etc. complement all that with more public housing and support institutional investors to manage rental housing at scale like in Germany, so people can rent and not worry about crazy rent hikes or getting kicked out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 06:44
|
|
|
I feel like we’re witnessing the metamorphosis of a union organiser into a liberal voting landlord in real time
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 06:44
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:I feel like we’re witnessing the metamorphosis of a union organiser into a liberal voting landlord in real time Union members are the ones that had the extra income to save and invest. Blamestorm posted:work on making landlordism more unattractive for anyone but large scale institutional investors gently caress this
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 06:47
|
|
|
negative gearing is bad but the cgt discount is a much bigger problem, yeah, and even reforming both of them won't be enough to fix the housing crisis or anything
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 06:51
|
|
|
good news; we're not reforming either of them e. everyone who matters politically is balls deep on property. nothing will be changed to impact these people negatively. i'm not going to write a bucky-esque post about it, but the way i see it, the only way out is some sort of parallel ownership system, like the freehold model or something similar. i think nightingale folks are doing this locally; on a tiny scale, but there's lots of interest. you basically need to carve out a separate, fairer system so that you don't touch the politically protected existing structure. although that probably still fails immediately since you're tied to the same fatally compromised planning and construction regime as everyone else. Mola Yam fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 06:59
|
|
|
Mola Yam posted:good news; we're not reforming either of them 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 07:00
|
|
|
JBP posted:
But surely you can see the current situation is unsustainable over the next twenty years? Plus, one of the major drivers of home ownership (along with tax status and it being factored into our retirement system) is that renting truly sucks in Australia compared with most other OECD countries. Improving renters rights will take heat out of the housing market as there will be less of a drive to buy - as right now it’s about personal long term security as much as wealth growth. The former we can take care of with much stronger tenants rights and protections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 07:21
|
|
|
JBP posted:E: it's also tiktok populism anyway. Aus Institute released a report that removing negative gearing might reduce prices by up to 2%. Pocock WIN, we removed negative gearing! Prices only increase 4% that year. 2% is almost $19K and mean house prices in Australia. That is a significant amount of money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 07:23
|
|
|
Budzilla posted:2% is almost $19K and mean house prices in Australia. That is a significant amount of money. As a lump sum I guess, but in the fullness of time (30yrs) it's not much money. If the cash rate drops 1% we're gonna see what a significant amount of money really is tho. E: there's also a massive variance in the impact. 2% I believe is taken economy wide, but it's less where housing isn't so desirable and more in Bondi or Sandringham.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 07:25
|
|
|
A better reason for abolishing negative gearing is that it is unfair - it costs around 25 billion in foregone revenue (which could be put into schools, climate resilience etc) and 80% of that goes to people in the 10% of taxable income. It's also intergenerationally unfair as most of those people are older. If you take it as part of a bigger picture including the massive super tax break (again - cost $45 billion - 2% of GDP - about 2/3rds of it goes to the top 20%) it's even more clear how overlapping systems and subsidies overwhelmingly support the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Basically all these systems are easy to take advantage of and make mad bank from if you're in the top 10% of wealth/income. Sure, people further downstream (top 20%) can also take advantage of it, but it's an order of magnitude less benefit. It's everyone further down the wealth/income track who gets totally screwed. I personally think it's fundamentally unfair as a country we forego so much revenue to benefit the already well off. I should note I'm also in a financial position / life stage where I would probably benefit from both negative gearing/CGT/super benefits but I still think it's wrong as a country and we need to do something about it. Even if they just cut all the tax breaks, simplify the system and dumped the resulting revenue into the dole/pension it would probably be healthier for all concerned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 07:35
|
|
|
All great points, but we all know that $25b will be used to purchased one (1) preloved war airplane. Also to clarify that's over ten years right? E: I topped up my super a few weeks ago so I'll hit the cap this year because I hate paying tax 
JBP fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 07:39
|
|
|
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/bruce-lehrmann-refused-settle-offer-network-ten-wilkinson/103755196 “Court documents reveal Bruce Lehrmann refused offer to settle defamation action before trial with Network Ten, Lisa Wilkinson began“ ‘You want the free money or the media circus?’ ‘CIRCUSCIRCUSCIRCUS!!’
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 08:08
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/bruce-lehrmann-refused-settle-offer-network-ten-wilkinson/103755196 I read somewhere that they explicitly said "No money will change hands" in the settlement
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 08:14
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:I feel like we’re witnessing the metamorphosis of a union organiser into a liberal voting landlord in real time
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 08:16
|
|
|
I don't have a huge issue with a mum and pa having a single rental property. I have a huge problem with shitheads gathering up large portfolios and commercial residential landlords. gently caress off with the housing is an investment bs that is ruining affordability
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 08:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
Poor Brucey working in the prison canteen to pay off his debt to Channel 10. Does anyone else remember a time when housing was this hosed? I mean the depression and the post war period were worse, but I can’t really think of anything between then and now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 08:21
|
|