GertsidetoOZ

Hi We are a family with young children 5 and 2. We are looking for an area around Sydney with good schools, family area, not too quiet, commuteable upto 40 mins to CBD. Budget upto $1k a week for house if we can get LAFA. North Sydney and Northern beaches look like favourites...Any recommendations? thank you in advance.

Sandra

Are you looking for public school - primary level?

Upper North Shore - Killara/St Ives/Pymble/Wahroonga/Gordon - all can get to Train easily enough for commute to city. Stay east of Pacific Highway for snob value

Northern Beaches - other people know better than me but unless it is nearer to Sydney the commute can start to be wearing.

Round the harbour I am not sure of costs but you will get more for your money further up

Have fun

chris and farideh

we live in Lindfield, I have come to hate the area as everybody are just so arrogants no commuinty feel to it at all, if your OH is going to stay at home she'll suffer, as most people around me dont like people who rent.
We will be looking to move to Killara or Gordon next lets hope they have nicer people live around there.

Fluid36

Yeah, if you rent you're considered a bit of a loser in Sydney. They would prefer you to be up to your eyeballs in debt like them.

Weebie

hahahahahah so true.

plantpot

Awww shame, it's not like that just a tad further down, I live on the wrong side of Roseville and lots of people rent....

I am nearer Chatswood and there are som nice places in Willoughby as well, but tiny but further up you will get more for your money....

Public school here is FAB and there is a lovely community feel, I am really happy...I pay 700 fr a three bed (small tho) and a big yard but the rent hasn't increased for 2.5 years....

plantpot

Really? I have never come across this...perhaps I am blissfully ignorant....

Bermudashorts

No never felt that either. I don't go around wearing a sign saying that I am a renter anyway but even so if somebody thought I was a loser because I rent it really wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Fluid36

That's the whole point.

Sandra

Not sure I get the rent = loser argument. There are hundreds of renters all over the North Shore and many of them are in the up market bracket of every suburb. In fact I go so far as to argue the other way. Many people buy a house they can afford - rent it out and rent a nicer house they want to live in! Renting is not perceived by anyone to my knowledge to be a loser thing to do.

The corporate lets around the Upper North Shore would let you know just how acceptable this process is. Why would anyone in their right mind buy two seconds off the boat in an area they do not know or buy a house for a short term period like 3-4 years if on a 457 temp and planning to move on. That in my mind is a loser asking to give away money in purchase tax which could easily be around 50K given the house prices on the North shore and then throw away a further 15-20K selling the bloody thing through an agent.

As I said I do not get the renters = loser attitude you say there is - never seen it/heard it or felt it.

Kooky.

I think Fluid36 just likes trolling property threads, Sandra. Knowing what you're talking about seems to be optional

Bermudashorts

Eh? What's the whole point?

Steve2009

I'll never understand why people do this, but if we all made the same decisions in life then there would be no poor or rich and life would be a bit boring.

Kooky.

Friends of mine do it - they rent a lovely big terraced house in Sydney's city fringes and have 3, soon to be 4, smaller investment properties in QLD.

Unlike me, owning their own place is not important to them (both men, might make a difference?) but investing for the future is (they won't have kids to look after them in their old age). The tax man also helps with any losses.

Steve2009

I think I learnt something this week that surprised me. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that the tax benefits do not cover the full cash loss for negative geared properties. You still lose that cash but you don't pay tax on it.

e.g.
Net interest per month $1000 per month.
Net rental income per month $800 per month.

Net interest per annum $12000 per annum.
Net rental income of $9600 per annum.

Your net income has been increased by $9600 by the rental income. You get a tax deduction of $12000 which covers that $9600 plus $2400 of income from other sources.

This $2400 is the amount by which you are subsidising the investment property per annum. If you had no investment property you would be receiving this amount less tax into your hand. If you are in the very top rate of tax this would be $1284 into your hand.

So in effect the total per annum cost to you is the net loss on the property less the marginal rate of tax? Negative gearing enthusiasts had led me to believe that the investments were cashflow neutral.