Swerv-o

Yeah, but then I actually have to go there and endure it...


S

Beoz

That's a point

Beoz

Swerv-o

I'm not averse to an investor tax - it seems like a reasonably sensible way to levy on people who will eventually gain from a property investment and the associated tax benefits, but not be an impost on FHBs.

Personally, I'd still much rather have a nice postitively geared property than a negatively geared one however.

A friend of mine has 6 negatively geared apartments in Sydney, and now he's lost his job, he's struggling to make the repayments, and has no income to offset the costs against. He's now talking about having to sell a couple of them pretty quickly, and how it's destroyed his retirement plans.


S

Beoz

Agree. .... and bad luck to your mate .... in fact tough sh*t to your mate ..... if you play with fire expect to be burned.

Swerv-o

yeah, I sort of feel this way as well. Despite the tax benefits, there remains significant risk with negatively geared properties - loss of job being one of the largest ones. Anybody getting into it needs to understand that this risk exists, and should at least have a strategy for managing it if it arises.

Don't tell him I said that though.


S

Beoz

Obviously pulling the rug or part of the rug now on NG and CGT could have massive consequences that the ALP haven't thought through, but NG has left in a very dangerous situation.

If unemployment goes up, there will be many more, like your mate, in the same situation. If you aren't earning, you've got nothing to write the loss of against. And with Australia's love of property and its massive exposure to it, this is a pretty dire situation.

The damage is done on NG and altering it now in some type of drastic fashion is going to hurt, it needs some type investor tax, to skew the ownership levels to owner occupiers. Like what they have done in Victoria - the problem is there, its done on one state, so all the investors just bugger off to places that don't have it. Needs to be done nationally.

Swerv-o

Yes, I agree with this. A single state approach is not going to work. I think it would be a good thing to drive investment away from property in general - it's unproductive, and is essentially a dead end for money apart from a few tradesmen that do the maintenance.

But then this comes back to what I always say about there being no real tax efficient investment alternatives. You have Super, Insurance Bonds and property. That's it. And super ties up your investment until preservation age, and seems to be subject to massive regulatory risk. Insurance Bonds are only tax efficient after 10 years.

I think that introducing a capped tax efficient savings vehicle like an ISA in the UK might encourage people away from riskier investments, but will still be gaining a tax advantage over a regular savings account.

But a federal investors tax on properties seems a fairly logical way of going about things to me. So no doubt it will be completely missed by everybody.


S

JoeBloggs80

The overall rent decrease rates are skewed by the massive drops in the mining regions.

Melbourne and Sydney rents are still increasing

Rent in Australia is falling at a record pace | Business Insider

Agree that the investor tax is a good thing.

Beoz

Maybe 1%. 2%. Its dropped in the nice areas.

JoeBloggs80

There's no maybe about it, the facts and figures are right there. Just trying to temper your slightly OTT previous post.

I like your anecdotal generalisation about "nice areas" though.

Beoz

Read it which ever way and which ever city you like.

http://m.smh.com.au/money/insight/economists-tip-rental-growth-to-remain-soft-in-2016-20160127-gmf3ay.html

Sydney
Perth
Darwin

All down.

Either way, if you accept a rental increase right now without haggling, bad luck to you.

knockoff nige

A bit off topic but does anyone know what the typical approach to changes to superannuation is for companies? Do they usually absorb the cost or is your base salary adjusted so that the change is absorbed by you and not them? When the last change to Super happened, the company paid it. I've had two roles since then, one where the company put the cost onto me and another where they bump my salary package to include the increase.

As the silly Abbot government handled that all wrong, I guess this could be on topic.

Swerv-o

It depends on what your contract says. If it is $xk + super then I believe they need to wear the cost. If your contract is $xk package then they can decrease your takehome to accommodate the increase in super contribution.


S

ozzieeagle

See where you are on this chart.... A political compass re the most Left and right parts of Australia and all in between.

I'm in the most Left Part of Australia.... in fact only 300 meters from Batman Station.

Vote Compass: Australia's most left-leaning and right-leaning seats revealed - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) MG


You wouldn't know it by the cars and houses around here though.... Bentleys, Teslas, Audi's and AMG Mercs everywhere