If you can afford to pay $1m+ for a house and end up with say $250k in super then you probably should eat your own home, your choice? Can't have your cake and eat it at the same time or ScoMo from marketing got us all fooled?
You Shouldn't Be Forced to Eat Your Own Home?
Lnetjock on 29/03/2021 - 21:52
Comments
@lunchbox99: No. You are right. But if someone has chosen to rent and not used the available funds that they save on wise investments compared to me paying a loan off then I have no sympathy.
My life was easier and cheaper renting but long term the sooner I got into the market the better. Thats the way i see it.
But life is a gamble and we all hope the choices we make are the best. Seems wealth in PPOR is a pretty smart choice though.
ALL Australians born on or after 1974 should be automatically ineligible for the Age Pension.
what about disabled people who have never had a job - they have no superannuation?
what about disable people who have worked a bit - they would have some but not a working life's worth?you cant stay on the disability pension when/if you reach retirement age - you get transfered to the aged pension.
6 on one half a dozen of the other.
what?
Grannies who purchased their $100k homes decades ago and now worth $1m+ should not have to sell their homes.
really? why not? Why should a granny that has saved a million dollars have to use that money even though they rent?
Really your entire networth should be considered, no you should not ever be kicked out of your home while you are alive but a reverse mortgage is more than reasonable or at the least they should lose the ability to pass those assets on at death, they can revert to the state if you wish to live off the state.
really? why not? Why should a granny that has saved a million dollars have to use that money even though they rent?
The home is different, it is the person's abode, there is value in allowing a person to stay in their home if they so wish.
Their home was probably purchased a long time ago and appreciated. Just because its worth $1m does not mean they feel like millionaires.
Forcing them to sell exposes the owner to big expenses like stamp duty, selling fees and moving costs. Thats in the tens of thousands.
A person renting but with $1m outside of PPOR will likely have it in income producing assets, the home is not income producing when one is living in it.no you should not ever be kicked out of your home while you are alive but a reverse mortgage is more than reasonable
A reverse mortgage exposes the borrower to big interest costs.
You are allowed to borrow 40% of the property, over a mil is $400k at 3% is $12k per year of their life. Not only are you not helping them you are making them lose $12k a year and that principal does not shrink.at the least they should lose the ability to pass those assets on at death, they can revert to the state if you wish to live off the state.
I trust you will want to apply this to all welfare recipients.
I actually agree with this for something like HECS debts but not the Age Pension.I don't know how young or old you are.
But those Boomers worked so that the government could afford to sent the next generation to school, higher learning and in good health. You want to reward them by stripping everything that they worked for.
it's very easy for the gov't to offer a reverse mortgage for these illiquid assets. They can even legislate a rate that is favourable for the home owner. They can literally eat their homes, until they die.
There's absolutely no need to kick anyone out of their abode.
the home is not income producing when one is living in it.
It is income producing in the sense that you don't have to pay rent elsewhere.
So what you really want is welfare for their children? regardless of the childrens current status cause that is what you are effectively arguing for. The home is NOT different, some people choose to own, other choose not to, why should your lifestyle choice be treated differently in the eyes of the government. Everyone should receive the exact same benefits (or lack of) based on their assets not their lifestyle choices.
This is exactly the problem. People treat PPOR as special with concessions that other investments do not have.
Well this country will have an increasing number of people without home ownership and there will be lot of resentment if those people have to burn everything they have ever saved to survive, while property owners are not asked to tap into the (substantial) wealth they have accumulated.
Wealth should be assessed. Not the form of that wealth.
Grannies who purchased their $100k homes decades ago and now worth $1m+ should not have to sell their homes.
A lot of them would love to downsize, but can't without getting smashed by stamp duty.
If you're downsizing by definition the new house will be smaller. And should cost less. So there should be plenty in the difference in cost between the two places to cover stamp duty.
Yeah but you're still blowing away capital unnecessarily.
Bring politicians super to our level and I then I might start listening to them.
Well to be fair, Mr Keating did call that out in the article.
But Mr Keating argued the optimal percentage would actually be closer to 15 per cent.
"The parliamentarians … are on 15 [per cent] — 15.4, in fact," he said.
So we should listen to him then?
So we should listen to him then?
Keating wasn't the one who implemented the 15.4%. It was an agreement between Mark Latham and John Howard when they got rid of the Defined Benefits scheme for members of Parliament (which would have cost more).
The pollies are now happy to get their 15.4% but the Coalition is happy to screw everyone else.
During the last 10 years, Australia has seen enormous growth in businesses but real wage growth for employees have stagnated. This goes to show, businesses will NEVER EVER voluntarily opt for employee wage increase even during boom times unless they're strong-armed into it (whilst crying poor).
Whether you like Keating or not, he was right in the program that the current pollies arguing against Super contributions being raised is absurd and without factual basis.
I don’t want to ‘eat my own house’ and should not be forced to. Have worked, saved, bought a place and now retired have super for a modest income plus part pension. My retirement has been predicated on not having to rent etc. They could include shares in housing stock as this would increase housing and give non owners an opportunity for equivalence.
All of this BS is because govt doesn’t want to keep with an established and legislated plan that has been in place for years. They dislike super. Never heard a time when employers didn’t bitch about giving working people super. Wages have not, and will not go up for years, not because they aren’t making money, they are just exploiting the system to limit wage growth. They will manage just fine like they did all the other times.
Super is legislated to go to 15% eventually. Put polices on the same as us at the moment and watch them change their tune.Awww maaaaaaate, geddonva bevvies with the boyyyys, figure out how other people are meant spend their money, maybe a cheeky couple of shots, scream the rules for how society should work in the Maccas drivethru speaker, kebab and Uber, hangover, reformed society #nicelydone
LOL wut?
Thanks for the laugh you big guzzla
Not really sure what OP is actually getting at.
Sounded like, "I love Paul Keating blah blah blah, hate ScoMo from marketing yada yada yada. Superannuation".
Sounded like, "I love Paul Keating blah blah blah, hate ScoMo from marketing yada yada yada. Superannuation".
That's all I got out of it too, lol…
No. Just the fact that run away house prices does a few things:
- You can only ever afford 1 house, and that house you can't afford to sell
- Trade off is being able to afford a house is small super balance which you need to support your massive council rates and other costs associated with insuring / maintaining an expensive asset
- Even if you can afford a IP you are pretty much in the bracket for land tax
- So what is the point of paying off your mortgage in 30 years and then spend 30 years giving it back, isn't it just like getting a rental contract with a 60 year term
Think we have missed the boat where we can own our own cheap property and retire. It is either one or the other.
Doesn't matter who says what even if you hate Keating who gave us the recession we had to have, a valid point is a valid point.
The cost of housing is going to get a new model. Here’s a billion dollar idea: You buy shares in a company or co-op that invests in housing and instead of buying your own home you rent from them. Over time your investment increases and when you retire you cash out and rent somewhere smaller from the same entities. The whole time your cash is not locked up in one piece of dirt that you can’t do anything with unless you sell it. Owning expensive property just to have a roof over your head is stupid of you think about it long enough. All that capital locked up just to give you a home. It defies logic as the cost of buying a home exceeds the annual income at an ever increasing rate. A new model will evolve just like other things have to make it more affordable. When is the question.
"You'll own nothing, and be happy"
Yeah, no thanks Marx.
You Shouldn't Be Forced to Eat Your Own Home?
Unless it's a Gingerbread House…
Thread closed.
Yes I agree… these poor poor multi millionaires make me sick. Anyone with a house in retirement years is in a great position.
You can live on the pension quite comfortably. I do, and I can save quite a lot as well.
Stop eating out. Stop drinking grog. Stop smoking. Stop driving around to stupid destinations.
I can save $1,000.00 per month…. that is more than these cry babies trying to save for a house deposit.
Why can't they save 10k, when they are living with mommy and daddy, on a combined wage of 120k+…
It's bc they want that car, that iPhone, that handbag, and MacDonalds, etc.Stop drinking grog. Stop smoking
Yes you should.
Add stop hitting the glass pipe to their rant
So people shouldn't enjoy life and support the economy so they can scrape and scrape until they die, because that is the way this construct of an economy works? They can't have both? They can't enjoy life and be looked after in older age? I think everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy prosperity, not forego lunch with friends or a new phone with their hard earned money.
I always find it interesting that people say PPOR "rules" need to be changed and force others out so that people can afford to buy a PPOR. To me that seems counter intuitive. Do the new people who just sold their house now get favourable treatment to push the people who just bought their property later as well?
~45% top tax bracket and 30% tax on super(if income is above 250k) is just crazy. Talent is just gong to leave the country in most cases as places like Singapore is going to be more attractive for those in that bracket. At the sametime, someone living in a multimillion dollar house gets pension. Something is not right in this country.
Something is not right in this country.
Yes, those with massive assets are in government and will protect their own to death.
And those without massive assets, quietly and meekly watch from the distance, hiding, too embarrassed to even talk.
Not really true. Those who have a lot of money can change tax residences like Greg Norman (Australia - US now back to Australia), or Dyson (UK to Singapore), Patrick Rafter and Cayman Islands.
If you are CEO of a company in Oz making $500K - $10M it is vary hard to argue you don't have to pay income tax because you are a citizen of Monaco because you need to get taxed first before the money goes overseas.
The point is you are forced to do it in Australia and you are frankly stupid if you do not do it. Having said that people with a "lot" of money will always find ways to avoid tax. It is time to lift the top tax bracket to something reasonable as a starting point perhaps. There will be noise(and many will abuse the marketing guy) but you need talent to stay in this country and pay their tax to have a sustainable future.
The tax raised is not used to serve the "needy" in many cases including the case of the asset rich getting pension. Time to scrap this.
This.
Go where you are treated best.
I am not interested in politics and debating negative gearing, superannuation policy, franking credits etc.
When the tax burden becomes greater than the inconvenience of moving, the strategy is to leave and move home, business, and investments offshore.
The top marginal tax bracket can be 90% but this is not of concern if there is nobody left to pay it.
I'm fine with that.
Don’t worry Singapore is super competitive and the dud Singaporeans usually come here to work instead. It’s all good.
You Shouldn't Be Forced to Eat Your Own Home?
Of course not "eat" as munch away but YES, the house you call home is an asset (ask the homeless or those struggling 30 years with a mortgage if it or not an asset) and it is there to be used for your benefit. For the beneficiary benefit.
Like Super, it is not for the inheritance but for the direct beneficiary to use, to consume, TO EXTINGUISH
Like your own savings (in cash or bank account), gold, shares, paintings, watches, jewelry, cars and boats, anything of high value that is there to improve your life, NOT to enlarge the inheritance you will leave.
How about we abolish mandatory super and government pensions. Just let people take responsibility for their own actions.
you definitely voted Liberals
Didn't vote for liberals or labor actually
Username does NOT check out
Some level of safety net is important for those less fortunate.
The issue is the definition of the less fortunate is growing to include the entitled and the lazy.Nobody's stopping anyone from sending a bigger tax cheque to fund the 'less fortunate'. Anybody with a safety net conviction should translate their beliefs into action.
What if those people have dementia or a brain injury?
Or quadriplegic or are blind etc? Society has functioned with the help of Charities prior to the welfare program. Let the people who are GENUINELY passionate about these matters open their doors and wallets to what they deem to be needy. I'm against forcing your neighbours at gun point through taxation to fund your idea of utopia.
I thought getting the aged pension was the Australian dream
Senseless listing
Another time waster
I personally don't agree with the fact that you can have a $1 million+ house and be on a pension at the same time.
Effectively taking money from the generation that's struggling to afford a house and giving it to those that are already living in affluent areas. Should be subject to a means test where every $100,000 that your house is over say $1 million you lose 10% of your pension. Not saying i'd kick out people living in their lifetime house, i'd just incentivise them to downsize so those with families who need the space can grow. This is another reason for Australia's stagnating population growth.It's the same deal with private health, those that are forced to use it subsidise those that rely on it.
It's just another transfer of wealth that's been built into our already one sided system.
australians have become 2 greedy and selfish - the short term is due to end very soon - embrace the new reality like the english are.
Go home netjock you're drunk
Gyprock tastes terrible I agree
Be careful - if you eat too much you’ll get plastered
This is a scare campaign - a massive misrepresentation of the Retirement Income Review's findings that "using superannuation assets more efficiently and accessing equity in the home can significantly boost retirement incomes without the need for additional contributions", particularly the government's Pension Loans Scheme. No-one needs to sell their house to live a "comfortable" retirement. Most retirees leave the bulk of the wealth they had at retirement as a bequest because they're petrified of running out of money. Campaigns like this just add to that fear.
Don’t know about others but at our workplace we are on a total remuneration contract which includes super. That means that any legislative increase in super will not really be passed on to the workforce.
I read an article the other day that showed that the majority of people have a super balance that is behind where it apparently should be in order to live a comfortable retirement. Then I read that this assumed that everyone retired having fully paid off their house, and so there was no rent or mortgage costs to worry about.
Imagine literally sitting on $1m+ house but bemoaning a super balance that didn't meet the "comfortable" definition. That seems absolutely crazy to me.
My parents are about to retire and my Dad is "worried" about his finances. They have a fully paid off $1m+ house and more than that in super. I have been telling him to live it up! Buy a holiday house. Travel everywhere. They want to stay in their house, which is fair enough. I suggested a reverse mortgage and I may as well have said that I didn't love them any more, the reaction would have been the same. WHY?
I think they should just ENJOY all their years of hard work. What is the point of worrying about money and then carking it with massive equity to be passed on to already well off kids?
If you have more than $1m super balance (if I read correct) then your parents have no issues. The dividends plus taking some of the capital over 30 years should be fine. Unless they really live it up and blow $100k a year. $50k probably no worries as the index is paying 2.8% + franking credits.
There is an article suggested that people with millions dollar house can still receive their pension but they have to pay back if they sell or transfer the house (as in they die and transfer to their kids) to the government. I think this is a sensible approach.
However none of political parties dare to implement that approach if they want votes from seniors.
Whats going to happen is that age pension can't catch up with the cost of living. That will natually force people to downsize.
no worries bout covid then….
I really like that idea. Not too dissimilar to the HECS/HELP set up, but is paid back immediately (post sale/transfer of house).
Anyone sitting in a 1mil house and crying poor on the pension can get stuffed. Houses should be included in the means test if the value is above 750k.
wont work, it'll be like death tax in the UK which is paid by less than 5% of people who die.
everyone will transfer their assets to their kids well before the time requires it, therefore no net gain - just makes lawyers and bankers richer by the transfer and legal process
on paper they will have 0 assets and 0 money, kids might give the parents an allowance (or pay all their bills) to keep below the means test
Then you simply ensure their is provisions in the rules that limit the lifetime transfer of assets as a deduction.
my point is, you cant implement 100 rules to stop these things, there will always be a loop hole
so stop trying to tax into oblivion people who arn't even rich (refer to "1million dollar house rich") and start taxing the 0.1% with millions in liquid assets, luxury cars, boats, investment properties, fancy art collections and 10million dollar houses and companies who pay and contribute next to nothing in Australia
once we have finished with those people, then we can move onto the far less "rich"
@[Deactivated]: you could say the same about tax rules, there will always be loopholes, better not charge anyone tax. I am not trying to tax anyone into oblivion, what I and others want is for people to be treated equally.
@gromit: for people to be treated equally, the top end of town needs to start paying more tax, these are the people who unfairly are able to benefit from the tax laws as they are currently - if you want a great example of tax loop holes benefiting the rich and unfairly impacting the poor look no further than America land of the "free" - they have a system designed to keep poor people poor and rich people rich
the bottom end of town don't have dozens of deductions, sole trader side businesses, family trusts, negative gearing, tax credits on shares, an army of top tax lawyers and accountants.
@[Deactivated]: that is just more whataboutism. The problem is inequitable treatment. Rich that avoid tax is a problem too, one does not negate the other. allowing "some" at the middle end to rort the system and live off the government can't be justified by "well others also rort the system so it is ok"
Can someone please translate
Everyone has made the assumption that there are two people living in these million dollar plus residences, that someone hasn't lost a partner, that no one has dementia, that no one is disabled, that so many have no education past a few years of primary school, that they're not financially vulnerable, that they don't have drug affected kids….the list could go on forever. It's not just about the less fortunate, it's about the less mentally able, and the vulnerable. I'm not an economist, I don't have answers to this stuff but I reckon if you're going to tackle economic inequality in this way, then it needs to be at all levels, not just pensioners who own a single home. If you want to free money up into the economy, I suspect there are much larger buckets out there. I doubt this would do anything to housing affordability, and possibly drive prices up as well resourced vultures circle.
How about they make a law where wages need to increase if the company profits billions? I mean how else are you going to control the CEO from getting $5 million payrise every year??? It would fix some problems right???
So if the company profit shrinks does that mean you are in favour of mandatory pay cuts for everyone?
capitalize the profits, socialize the losses.
the way of the capitalist system
I'll be in favour of that when the CEO doesn't earn $15 million during their shrinking profits.
BTW, been in a company where I had to reduce a day because their profits were tanking. CEO was only on $130K, took a cut etc. Was happy to because it was a transparent system. Small company.
The problem will be if you try and mandate payrises linked to profits you will absolutely also have to accept paycuts linked to profit. Personally I think it is a dumb idea that would just encourage companies to hide profits (which is easy to do).
@gromit: Mandate pay rises so the CEO and middle management aren't on 62 times the salary of average Joe! You can't hide their salary. Simple. Companies probably already hide profits and avoid tax. Just look at Facebook and Google.
In reality what happens is that those doing hours and hours of unpaid overtime, working at the coalface gets no bonuses, those a bit higher gets a bit of a bonus, and upper management and exec retain or increase their pay when profit shrinks. Those at the bottom are already getting a paycut when profit shrinks.
trickle down economics…. doesnt really trickle down but, more like trickle up
the only thing that trickles down is the piss, when they piss on you
I think it's ok to keep your whatever million dollar home, if it's not generating income for you. Not everyone chose to have their home go from the $300k they paid to $1m in value, they were lucky they picked an area and were born at the right time.
Yes I understand these people can sell and downsize, but it comes with a lot of history and life where they've lived all their lives in.
I think the viewpoint should be shifted more towards estate tax more so. If there was less old money and people who inherited ABC from their predecessors then it would be a bit more a level playing ground for every generation and it's up to the parents to gear the kids up to earn their own pot of gold. This may trigger the older generation to sell off their own assets, or spend more to enjoy their lives since the estate will be taxed.
curious on your thoughts about this idea posted just above then. Seems to overcome the concern about staying in the family home.
"There is an article suggested that people with millions dollar house can still receive their pension but they have to pay back if they sell or transfer the house (as in they die and transfer to their kids) to the government"
Surely that would mean that they are then entitled to receive back the income tax they paid across the course of their life? Because income tax pays for things like the aged pension for people who need it, and most people on the aged pension worked their guts out for most of their life and paid taxes.
I am talking about the hundreds of thousands of retirees that live in a $1m+ plus house but also receive the pension. When they die, the house is sold/transferred, but say $200k (for example) of "accumulated pension debt" is paid back to the govt . What's wrong with that?
For the record, this would mean that I myself would recieve less inheritance. Happy with that.
@endolphin: The problem with that is what if they need to go into residential aged care and pay a bond proportional to their assets? Ie those with a million dollar home often end up paying a bond of $800k anyway because it's included in the aged care assets test.
@MessyG: how is that a problem? the simple fact is the system is currently massively lopsided, forcing others to subsidise those sitting on large assets while others with similar amounts but different assets get no such subsidy.
for example consider 4 retirees.
a) worked hard all their life, but has nothing to show for it except their $1.5m house
b) did nothing all their life, lived off social security/parents inherited a house worth $1.5m
c) worked hard all their life, own a small house worth $200k but have $1.3m in treasured possessions they have collected over a lifetime
d) worked hard all their life, rent a house but have 1.5m in assets and possessions.a) and b) are entitled to a pension yet c and d aren't. c and d will be forced to sell and live off those assets while a and b will be given a government subsidy to so they can keep them. this is inequitable and is basically rewarding people for sitting on an asset and living off the government. Either all should be eligible for the same benefit or none of them should be.
@gromit: If you think about it, Medicare is essentially a free health pension for all. Do you think that should be repaid too? Plenty of very rich people using it.
I'd rather they just change the pension eligibility rather than rob Peter's lifes work to pay government Paul.
@MessyG: Whataboutism is a ridiculous argument, that is the best you have for treating people unfairly? Medicare is also NOT free, it is a welfare benefit for the poor, paid for with the taxes of those that can afford it. I have no problems with welfare for those that need it, I object to welfare for those that do not need it and yes many aspects of medicare are also fundamentally broken.
@gromit: Good illustrations - the scenarios really put things into perspective.
People are advocating that a and b need to sell their house to fund their retirement.
What about the reverse - c and d could sell their assets/possessions to buy a house? Then they can enjoy the same "benefits" as a and b.@cuteseal: because c and d will be deemed to have a CGT event by disposing of their assets to buy the house and hence will get a nice large tax bill and again be significantly worse off. But again why should they have to sell anything. An asset is an asset, either they all qualify or none of them qualify. FYI most are not advocating they sell their house, rather that they are given reverse mortgages if they wish to live off government benefits while sitting on a large asset, then when they pass the estate is settled minus any debt to the government.
I've always taken issue with mandatory super - how does this make any sense other than to say that some people are too dumb to be responsible for their own savings and therefore everyone needs to be forced to save a set % of their money with these giant superfunds who have all sorts of dodgy shit going on internally.
Just think about it this way, an employee earning 100k a year base is entitled to 9.5% super. So the employer will need to pay 109.5k MINIMUM, plus whatever other ongoing costs are associated with an employee (insurance, leave etc).
Whether an employee receives the super up front or it goes into some dumb super account, it still costs the same to the employer. Increasing super increases the cost to the employer, so there's less incentive to increase base wage rates up front. At the end of the day, if I were running a business I don't care if the extra cost is "super" or "wages", it costs me more to employ someone so obviously this needs to come from somewhere.
I wouldn't say people are too "dumb" to save money for retirement, but there is virtually no reason for a 25 year old to be thinking about saving money for when they'll be 70. It's also the best time to save, to take advantage of compounding interest. So we force everyone to save for the future. What's the alternative? Millions of people will be expecting a taxpayer funded pension, and we simply can't afford that.
I suppose where we would have to agree to disagree is that I would say there's literally every reason (i.e., your own life) for why a 25 year old should be thinking of their financial future. I don't think this necessarily should mean "saving", but just that any rational person would look at his own life and realise that his earning potential will differ at different stages, and therefore he needs to take this into account when making decisions in the present.
This isn't a very hard thing to realise either, I think we can all remember times as kids when the concept of a"retirement" came up.In terms of an alternative - maybe it is a taxpayer funded pension for those who don't have enough, who knows. Super isn't a direct replacement for pension either, and to understand what's an appropriate pension I think its better to think about what the problem actually is, which would broadly be "how do we look after those who can't work but still deserve a dignified standard of living?". To this I would answer, maybe it is better to tax people more and abolish super instead. Who knows - my only point from my post was I think it's stupid that we're forced to contribute close to 10% and eventually more of our own earnings to these dumb super funds in the first place. I would much rather pay another 2-4% in annual income tax and simply receive the benefit of my income that is going toward super instead because I value my own decisions and autonomy.
any rational person would look at his own life and realise that his earning potential will differ at different stages, and therefore he needs to take this into account when making decisions in the present.
Not everyone is rational though. It is the government that would be picking up the tab for the non rational people. Better to make it mandatory.
@Quantumcat: super is fantastic. common sense isn't common. money sense is even less common
forcing people to save and not touch, hopefully one day we can be rid (or significantly reduce) of the huge burden which is aged pension and use that money for something better
It's weird how people will argue for universal basic income, but then at the same time, think the pension should be means tested.
Usually the ones who can't get means tested pension will argue to deny others or deny others so they can stay on it and get a bigger share of the pie. Then if they can access free cash then yeah go all in.
Hypocrisy everywhere.
Usually the ones who can't get means tested pension will argue to deny others or deny others so they can stay on it and get a bigger share of the pie. Then if they can access free cash then yeah go all in.
I follow a few FIRE groups (financial independence / early retirement) and the bulk want nothing to do with pensions or the government / centrelink having anything to do with their assets or how they spend their money. Getting the pension or other direct government cash handout has never been on my radar as part of my financial structure.
Having given away australia's savings to the rich and overseas investors here comes the assault on all those who live here.
Savings have to be made so you start with the weakest - the sick and the disabled - then move onto the elderly/ unemployed.
Standard tactics from the right. We can't afford a community now, and we don't need one blah blah. Dog eat dog ideology excretes from the rich like vomit during a plague.
when will people realise it's the residential investment property market that drives up demand and lowers supply and therefor increases prices?
if you own your own house/home and have extra money to invest that is great. there are plenty of options available to you to invest it.
so maybe there shouldn't be extra incentives to buy residential investment properties like negative gearing.
and logically there should be rules requiring investment properties to be new builds only therefor increasing the supply.
we are returning to serfdom with all these landlords.
According to the ATO, a total of 2,097,392 Australians own 1 or more investment properties. This means that 8.7% of the Australian population can classify themselves as property investors…
This also means that less than 1 out of every 10 Australians are even remotely in a position to offer any advice on property investment. The rest can only speculate.
There is the high likelihood that people are just winding themselves up by just talking like they are swimming in money from property investments. There is something odd. If you live in a house whether it is worth $300k or $1m it doesn't generate an income (unless you rent out rooms and it is bad returns the higher the price is). Not sure what people are thinking but they would say they are right.
Now I realise I should have bought a gingerbread house. Damn you concrete!
So if they do save money and invest it, then that wealth is not treated the same as property. Do you think that is fair? One person with $1m total wealth in property vs another person with $1m total wealth in cash, or shares, or super?