Pauline on Q&A

[wide eyed and legless]

Like I said I may be totally wrong in my observation but it is my observation and in Australia we are all entitled to have an opinion.

Then you will upset the allodoxaphobics.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Then you will upset the allodoxaphobics.

Is that an opinion ?

 

[arctic78]

Maybe just different

 

[nosco]

Apart from her personaly, the thing i hate most about PH is that she is making a fortune from tax payers and from the media. I think thats a strong motivator in her political career.

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

She really is as thick as pig ****. Her minders starting from Michael Oldfield (ex Abbot staffer) and James Ashby (ex Slipper's office) do her heavy lifting. Left to her own devices she would be struggling to numerate her IQ.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Apart from her personaly, the thing i hate most about PH is that she is making a fortune from tax payers and from the media. I think thats a strong motivator in her political career.

her and every other politician

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Just goes to show that one doesn't need a university degree or a union rep to be onto a good earner, must say that I am totally against PH wanting to make property more affordable, what about the people who have invested in property to support them in their old age.

 

[SBOB]

what about the people who have invested in property to support them in their old age.

at the expense of every future generation ever affording property due to the ever increasing rate of property price inflation?

and is never going to drop the floor out of property prices, but why we continue to think being able to offset yearly investment losses against personal income gains is a good idea..
Tax deductions should be limited to the source of income they come from seems like a pretty common sense idea for tax reform. You make a loss on your investment property due to it being cash flow negative, no worries.. carry those losses forward to future years in your tax claims and offset them against gains in that same property in the future.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Just goes to show that one doesn't need a university degree or a union rep to be onto a good earner, must say that I am totally against PH wanting to make property more affordable, what about the people who have invested in property to support them in their old age.

at the expense of every future generation ever affording property due to the ever increasing rate of property price inflation?

and is never going to drop the floor out of property prices, but why we continue to think being able to offset yearly investment losses against personal income gains is a good idea..
Tax deductions should be limited to the source of income they come from seems like a pretty common sense idea for tax reform. You make a loss on your investment property due to it being cash flow negative, no worries.. carry those losses forward to future years in your tax claims and offset them against gains in that same property in the future.

and the fairest way to bring this in is to make the changes apply to new loans, and allow existing arrangements to remain. That way no individual loses out.

The whole thing is a scam and I'm amazed it's been allowed to go on for so long. If house prices rise faster (proportionally) than the median household income, the only net result is economic stratification (widening the class gap). Not a bad deal for those already on the top of the heap, but ********* for the nation as a whole. At the end of the day purchasing property is unproductive investment, it does nothing to warrant a return.

For the record I have an investment property.. not some pinko student anarcho-socialist

 

[wide eyed and legless]

I can't understand why everyone isn't doing something to make sure there future retirement is financed, the government has already warned that the government age pension is not going to be around when most of us retire.
Maybe it isn't the Chinese buying all the houses, it could be Aussie investors protecting their future h34r:
Though in retrospect all the houses being sold around me do have Chinese looking people moving into them.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Not everyone earns enough to be able to purchase property, that's the point.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Well somebody has to rent the investment properties, otherwise no one would invest in them.Catch 22

 

[Liam_snorkel]

they have no real choice. That's called wealth disparity.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

And it will always be there, as it has throughout history.

 

[madpierre06]

must say that I am totally against PH wanting to make property more affordable, what about the people who have invested in property to support them in their old age.

And I thought thios was just some 'A' Grade level trolling. Yeah, **** the poor *******s sitting on the bottom of the **** pile who want to improve their circumstances. But then where would the investors find some cheap slave labour who will take the bowls of gruel doled out to them for their 18 hour day down mines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

 

[SBOB]

And it will always be there, as it has throughout history.

so lets work hard to increase that wealth disparity in the name of history...right...

 

[SBOB]

and the fairest way to bring this in is to make the changes apply to new loans, and allow existing arrangements to remain. That way no individual loses out.

exactly..retroactive tax changes are way too disruptive, but at no point does someone buying an existing property and being able to offset tax losses add anything to the countries economy..and anyone who already has one can sit on whatever ridiculous growth they have already realised

Tax write offs on new developments sure, because you're essentially offsetting some 'growth' in the building sector with some tax offsets elsewhere, makes some form of economic sense.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

" Make the rich richer and the poor poorer"..WEAL 2106

 

[klangers]

Not to say work against disparity, but don't think it hurts to be realistic.

Take this example. On average, every person in a 1st world/developed country has (roughly, for argument's sake) 300 kg of copper associated with them. This is copper not necessarily in one's possessions, but also in the infrastructure etc that they use but don't own.

There is not enough accessible copper on Earth for every person on Earth to have the same standard of living that we do. We either keep the status quo or of wealth disparity or work really frigging hard to find a material that's like copper but is cheaper and plentiful.

I don't see many people worrying about this; far easier to ignore and give $5 to charity to clear one's conscience

 

[wide eyed and legless]

so lets work hard to increase that wealth disparity in the name of history...right...

Wrong there will always be those who will achieve and those who won't nothing can change that.