Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 98

Thread: Home ownership - the new class divide

  1. #41
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allover View Post
    Why negative gearing rules wont change


    What is not mentioned here is the number of houses etc hidden in other family members names which is what i would do if i was a sleazy parlimanterian
    The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.



  • #42
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,753
    Thanks
    16,819
    Thanked 34,964 Times in 9,060 Posts
    Rep Power
    13678
    Reputation
    644489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allover View Post
    Why negative gearing rules wont change


    What is not mentioned here is the number of houses etc hidden in other family members names which is what i would do if i was a sleazy parlimanterian
    I just don't really see a problem. So, politicians can't or shouldn't OWN anything? More problematic to me is undeclared property.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
    Well, Yeah! We've known THAT for years.

    But I don't necessarily think that this particular issue is the problem. It's just one problem on an endless list of lies and conflicts of interest. Backflip Bill has at least one property, so we'll see if he keeps his word soon enough....

    I think nomeats idea of gearing on new properties makes some sense, which probably means it won't happen.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #43
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    I just don't really see a problem. So, politicians can't or shouldn't OWN anything? More problematic to me is undeclared property.
    The fact that politicians own property is not a problem.

    The fact that politicians are the ones who formulate and vote on policies that potentially affect the value of those properties is very much a problem.

    Conflict of interest writ large.

  • The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Thala Dan For This Useful Post:

    allover (20-04-17),alpha0ne (20-04-17),OSIRUS (20-04-17),Tiny (20-04-17),Uncle Fester (22-04-17)

  • #44
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,688
    Thanks
    1,938
    Thanked 2,104 Times in 1,050 Posts
    Rep Power
    967
    Reputation
    32468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    The fact that politicians own property is not a problem.

    The fact that politicians are the ones who formulate and vote on policies that potentially affect the value of those properties is very much a problem.

    Conflict of interest writ large.
    Yep exactly what i was going to say and the reason for posting
    There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"

  • #45
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,688
    Thanks
    1,938
    Thanked 2,104 Times in 1,050 Posts
    Rep Power
    967
    Reputation
    32468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allover View Post
    Yep exactly what i was going to say and the reason for posting
    Also don't forget about the pollies doubling/tripling up in one so called pollies apartment in Canberra and renting out theirs, ENF your our man on the spot get out there and find them out
    There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"

  • #46
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,753
    Thanks
    16,819
    Thanked 34,964 Times in 9,060 Posts
    Rep Power
    13678
    Reputation
    644489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    The fact that politicians own property is not a problem.

    The fact that politicians are the ones who formulate and vote on policies that potentially affect the value of those properties is very much a problem.

    Conflict of interest writ large.
    Ummmmm....who do you suggest does then? The destitute? Some "expert" that probably owns property?

    Government is inherently a potential conflict of interest on so many levels and just about every issue, and always has been.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #47
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,688
    Thanks
    1,938
    Thanked 2,104 Times in 1,050 Posts
    Rep Power
    967
    Reputation
    32468

    Default

    Geez ENF get out there and investigate, what in the hell do you do in the day
    heres another link from the commy left tv station

    And they aint biased, come on

    Declaration, This member also has a negatively geared investment property and is knowingly depriving a couple from obtaining a residence at a reasonable price due to selfish intent, whats more he has a ABN number which allows him to benefit at the expense of wage earners. Do i believe in an egalitarian society like existed in the 1950s where Australia was the most egalitarian society at that time and would i deprive myself of my advantages, sure would, but then i am not a self seeking politician who really does not give a fvck about his constituents, but only on being re elected again so he can milk the system, if you think i hate pollies your sure right
    There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"

  • #48
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Thanks
    1,061
    Thanked 904 Times in 511 Posts
    Rep Power
    502
    Reputation
    12237

    Default

    How many of those properties in that link are negatively geared?

  • #49
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,753
    Thanks
    16,819
    Thanked 34,964 Times in 9,060 Posts
    Rep Power
    13678
    Reputation
    644489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allover View Post
    Geez ENF get out there and investigate, what in the hell do you do in the day
    heres another link from the commy left tv station

    And they aint biased, come on

    Declaration, This member also has a negatively geared investment property and is knowingly depriving a couple from obtaining a residence at a reasonable price due to selfish intent, whats more he has a ABN number which allows him to benefit at the expense of wage earners. Do i believe in an egalitarian society like existed in the 1950s where Australia was the most egalitarian society at that time and would i deprive myself of my advantages, sure would, but then i am not a self seeking politician who really does not give a fvck about his constituents, but only on being re elected again so he can milk the system, if you think i hate pollies your sure right
    If there's subterfuge then if it's illegal, prosecute them. I still don't see your point. Its an ABC article and I read it this morning before I read the thread. Funny how theres only Coalition politicians in the photo...

    I still don't understand who you want to make these decisions if the government of the day doesn't. Please elaborate. If it's not the government, then who?
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #50
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    Funny how theres only Coalition politicians in the photo...
    Actually, it's not funny at all........the caption underneath the photo clearly states:

    The members of Cabinet's Expenditure Review Committee, which will set housing affordability policies, all own property.
    Quite unsurprisingly, the photo shows members of the Expenditure Review Committee.

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    I still don't understand who you want to make these decisions if the government of the day doesn't. Please elaborate. If it's not the government, then who?
    A reasonable question.

    However the absence of an immediate answer to that question does not diminish the legitimacy of the concern about the perceived conflict.

    Nor should it imply that the status quo is the only solution.

    There are many Boards, Commissions, and other such bodies that hand down rulings on many aspects of our daily lives….like the wholesale price of electricity, the minimum wage, and the level of interest rates.

    It would not seem to be beyond the realm of possibility that such a body could make some determinations in respect of housing policy.

    We already have the Productivity Commission and the Reserve Bank openly criticising Negative Gearing.

    In respect of Conflict of Interest, the Senate seems to manage reasonably well in the light of Standing order 27(5).

    2. The standing orders
    Conflict of interest on a committee
    Standing order 27(5) prohibits a senator sitting on a committee if the senator has a conflict of interest in relation to an inquiry. The standing order applies to a situation in which a senator personally has a private interest in the subject of a committee's inquiry which conflicts with the duty of the senator to participate conscientiously in the conduct of inquiry. An example would be an inquiry involving a company in which a senator held shares. Under the standing order, declaration of the interest would not be sufficient.
    If such a provision is necessary for the work of something as simple as a Senate committee, it must be doubly so for the bodies that formulate and enact policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    Government is inherently a potential conflict of interest on so many levels and just about every issue, and always has been.
    All the more reason to try and change it.

  • The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thala Dan For This Useful Post:

    alpha0ne (21-04-17),lsemmens (21-04-17),Uncle Fester (22-04-17)

  • #51
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PZ. View Post
    How many of those properties in that link are negatively geared?
    Apparently that information does not need to be divulged on the Register of Interests.

    However, it's a moot point.

    If negative gearing were to be abolished, and the result was a fall in property prices, then all property would be so affected.

    Consequently, it doesn't really matter whether a politicians property(s) are negatively or positively geared....the value of all would be affected by any downward movement in the market.

    Hence, the conflict still arises, no matter the status of the properties' finance.

    Although it's probably fair to say that those with negatively geared property would be in deeper doo-doo than those who are positively geared

  • #52
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,688
    Thanks
    1,938
    Thanked 2,104 Times in 1,050 Posts
    Rep Power
    967
    Reputation
    32468

    Default

    ENF, only having a light hearted dig
    If the opposition were in power = same out come, think Thala has summed it up pretty well
    There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"

  • #53
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    Exactly...

    Ans also what is not often mentioned are the figures from Census and Stats that state that the overwhelming majority of people who negative gear (87% I think) are in fact middle income earners trying to get ahead.....not the wealthy. But Bill the Backpedaller will always say it's the rich because it's the populist belief and will probably get him elected so he can take a turn in the big trough. That's all politicians care about.

    You might like to read this Fact-Check article.....I'm sorry....I know it's from those left, pinko, commie bastards at the ABC....but it might shed some light on the subject:

    FactCheck: are average earners the main beneficiaries of negative gearing?

    Verdict

    If Kelly O’Dwyer is referring to the ABS’ average weekly earnings for full time employees in 2015, then she would be correct in asserting that most (around 66%) negatively geared investors have a taxable income below this level in 2012-13.

    However, ATO data shows that, typically, negatively geared investors have higher incomes than people without rental investments.

    The same data shows that negatively geared investors have typical incomes around 50% higher than non-investors – even after deducting their losses from negative gearing.

    The top 10% of the income distribution for negatively geared investors earn around 50% more than non-investors. Incomes for this top 10% are around $150,000 per year, compared with $98,000 for non-investors, according to the ATO. – Ben Phillips and Cukkoo Joseph


    • Taxation statistics show 66.5% of taxfilers who declare a net rental loss have a taxable income of A$80,000 or less.
    There is an interesting, and often overlooked, aspect of these oft-bandied statistics.

    Notice that the stats are based on net taxable income…..that is, income after all deductions.

    Guess which segment of society has access to all manner of strategies that help to minimise net taxable income?

    I recall Kerry Packer proudly announcing to a Senate inquiry that he was able to legitimately reduce his net taxable income to the point where he paid 10 cents in the dollar tax.

    Did that make him a poor Aussie battler just trying to get ahead by investing in property?

    So the argument that “The bulk of negative gearers are in fact poor Aussie battlers doing it tough on $80,000 or less per annum" really doesn’t stack up without further and deeper analysis.

    Another creative use of statistics by the proponents of this legitimate tax rort is the use of percentages, rather than absolutes.

    Whilst it may be argued that lower income earners derive a greater percentage benefit from negative gearing vis-vis their income level, the fact is that the greatest absolute benefit (in dollars) accrues to the top 20%.

    But I think that the last word on the subject of who benefits and who doesn’t is probably contained in this article:

    Negative gearing helps low-income people most, but that's besides the point

    The relative benefits of negative gearing are greatest at low income levels; but this shouldn't determine what is done. Much more important is the impact on the budget, the housing market and economy more broadly. This is where the debate should be held, not in facile and misleading discussions about the distribution of benefits and losses.


    Michael Potter is a research fellow in the Economics Program at the Centre for Independent Studies.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thala Dan For This Useful Post:

    OSIRUS (21-04-17),Uncle Fester (21-04-17)

  • #54
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,753
    Thanks
    16,819
    Thanked 34,964 Times in 9,060 Posts
    Rep Power
    13678
    Reputation
    644489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    ............

    All the more reason to try and change it.
    To what? The senate seems to work well? Derryn Hinch certainly has views on housing....

    So, change it to what?

    If prices drop....I'm sorry if I don't take your word for it. As I stated, the media "experts" don't seem to have a consensus, so you'll forgive me if I don't just take your opinions as wrote and assume it will reduce ANYTHING.

    But I'm all for it.....if it works then fine. If it doesn't then I suppose you can just say "sorry you suckers who bought investment properties in good faith, but you can just sell them to the Chinese or the already wealthy for the overinflated price they cost anyway and bail out of the market."

    Don't get me wrong here. I am NOT happy with the status quo...I own a home that is ridiculously priced and over valued, but it's an irrelevancy to me personally as I never intend to leave until the scientists get my carcass.

    I just have an aversion to changing things for the sake of it, assuming the situation will improve.....
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #55
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    To what? The senate seems to work well? Derryn Hinch certainly has views on housing....

    So, change it to what?

    If prices drop....I'm sorry if I don't take your word for it. As I stated, the media "experts" don't seem to have a consensus, so you'll forgive me if I don't just take your opinions as wrote and assume it will reduce ANYTHING.

    But I'm all for it.....if it works then fine. If it doesn't then I suppose you can just say "sorry you suckers who bought investment properties in good faith, but you can just sell them for the overinflated price they cost anyway and bail out of the market."

    Don't get me wrong here. I am NOT happy with the status quo...I own a home that is ridiculously priced and over valued, but it's an irrelevancy to me as I never intend to leave until the scientists get my carcass.

    I just have an aversion to changing things for the sake of it assuming the situation will improve.....
    Perhaps you would be happier back in the Stone Age then........after all, where have all those stupid changes since then gotten us?

  • #56
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,753
    Thanks
    16,819
    Thanked 34,964 Times in 9,060 Posts
    Rep Power
    13678
    Reputation
    644489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    Perhaps you would be happier back in the Stone Age then........after all, where have all those stupid changes since then gotten us?
    Sigh! I'll ask again as you seem averse to answering...change it to what?
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #57
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Regarding all those poor Aussie battlers on less than $80,000 pa who only buy investment properties to try and get ahead:

    Meet the 48 millionaires who pay no income tax, not even the Medicare levy

    All were able to drive their taxable incomes down below the $18,200 tax-free threshold. Thirty-four reported taxable incomes of zero, while 12 reported combined losses of $13.9 million....


    Only eight of the 48 were negatively geared, claiming combined rental losses of $1.54 million.
    So those eight would appear as poor Aussie battlers just trying to get ahead.

    And that's just from
    Forty-eight of Australia's highest earners........
    Cry me a river.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to Thala Dan For This Useful Post:

    Uncle Fester (22-04-17)

  • #58
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    Sigh! I'll ask again as you seem averse to answering...change it to what?
    Your feigned frustration is becoming a tiresome tactic, enf.

    Re-read my post #50.

    Perhaps even try suggesting some positive alternatives yourself, rather than sniping at those that do, and wallowing in acquiescent cynicism.

  • #59
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,405
    Thanks
    2,289
    Thanked 4,414 Times in 2,517 Posts
    Rep Power
    2046
    Reputation
    81778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    Sigh! I'll ask again as you seem averse to answering...change it to what?
    Seems like a reasonable answer and solution to me:

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    There are many Boards, Commissions, and other such bodies that hand down rulings on many aspects of our daily lives….like the wholesale price of electricity, the minimum wage, and the level of interest rates.


    It would not seem to be beyond the realm of possibility that such a body could make some determinations in respect of housing policy.
    Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
    Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
    Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...

  • The Following User Says Thank You to Uncle Fester For This Useful Post:

    enf (21-04-17)

  • #60
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,753
    Thanks
    16,819
    Thanked 34,964 Times in 9,060 Posts
    Rep Power
    13678
    Reputation
    644489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    There are many Boards, Commissions, and other such bodies that hand down rulings on many aspects of our daily lives….like the wholesale price of electricity, the minimum wage, and the level of interest rates.


    It would not seem to be beyond the realm of possibility that such a body could make some determinations in respect of housing policy.
    Yeah nomeat, seems reasonable. OK...I'll agree....perhaps the Fair Work Commission could do it you reckon? Their last ruling was universally accepted by almost everyone...
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •