The negative gearing election

[Power Raid]

PAYG negative gearing is not being carried out as a business. That is the whole point you simply refuse to acknowledge

PAYG negative gearing? never heard of that terminology especially when individuals and companies have a PAYG system.


Can you explain?

 

[QuietB]

probably because market requires both the primary market and secondary market to be efficient. What we will see is new home buyers paying more with the property developers raping the ordinary on the way in and the wealthy raping the ordinary on the way out, as the material loss of value due to tax policies.

Bullshit. Property prices are determined by market forces.

PAYG negative gearing? never heard of that terminology especially when individuals and companies have a PAYG system.


Can you explain?

Sorry Pauline

 

[checkraiseulite]

don't you have some imaginary investment bank or gold mine to run?

 

[Power Raid]

Bullshit. Property prices are determined by market forces.


Sorry Pauline

Lol

So a major tax policy funnelling ordinary investors into a tight new construction sector won’t cause a supply demand imbalance?

Then these same new home owners selling into a reduced demand market, due to tax penalties, won’t also result in a supply demand imbalance?


Please refer to the impact of a doubling of first home owners loan in the market, then add steroids.

 

[QuietB]

Lol

So a major tax policy funnelling ordinary investors into a tight new construction sector won’t cause a supply demand imbalance?

Then these same new home owners selling into a reduced demand market, due to tax penalties, won’t also result in a supply demand imbalance?


Please refer to the impact of a doubling of first home owners loan in the market, then add steroids.

How many people are currently buying investment homes in the new home market?

 

[Power Raid]

How many people are currently buying investment homes in the new home market?

In homes low but apartments higher.

The new policy will see ordinary investors competing with home buyers in a tight supply market.

Property developers and construction companies will be lining up to rape the uninformed market.

Meanwhile the wealthy will sit back in the secondary market and rape the sellers of new properties.

This is history repeating itself only worse.

How old are you? Were you around in the 80s?

 

[QuietB]

In homes low but apartments higher.

The new policy will see ordinary investors competing with home buyers in a tight supply market.

Property developers and construction companies will be lining up to rape the uninformed market.

Meanwhile the wealthy will sit back in the secondary market and rape the sellers of new properties.

This is history repeating itself only worse.

How old are you? Were you around in the 80s?

Do you know anything about the property market right now? Anything.

If you are arguing that prices in any sector of the housing market are going to increase you are kidding yourself.

Existing stock is not selling. Prices are falling and that is not going to change.

The apartment boom is over. Chinese buyers are gone and with them half of the buyers.

New home builds are falling rapidly. Under no circumstances will prices go up when new home approvals are falling so fast.

Every part of the housing sector is under pressure with massively falling demand. You are kidding yourself.

 

[Power Raid]

Do you know anything about the property market right now? Anything.

If you are arguing that prices in any sector of the housing market are going to increase you are kidding yourself.

Existing stock is not selling. Prices are falling and that is not going to change.

The apartment boom is over. Chinese buyers are gone and with them half of the buyers.

New home builds are falling rapidly. Under no circumstances will prices go up when new home approvals are falling so fast.

Every part of the housing sector is under pressure with massively falling demand. You are kidding yourself.

Yes, I owned two property companies capitalising on the misery of the GFC and the first home owners grant.

The banks were putting the squeeze on the developers, so being a CA, I designed a sale that looked like a sale for the banks but I didn’t have to pay for them until I sold.

I then sold the properties in sub divided lots, pre title to first home owners cashed up due to the grant. The minimum return in 9 months was 35% and the highest 85%. On an annualised basis that’s 50% and 200%.


This demonstrates the impact of crap policy. I also vowed never to participate or capitalise on crap policy ever again.


So yes, I am informed. Are you?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

don't you have some imaginary investment bank or gold mine to run?

Whatever Elon Musk would do if he had less money and lived in Perth.

 

[QuietB]

Yes, I owned two property companies capitalising on the misery of the GFC and the first home owners grant.

The banks were putting the squeeze on the developers, so being a CA, I designed a sale that looked like a sale for the banks but I didn’t have to pay for them until I sold.

I then sold the properties in sub divided lots, pre title to first home owners cashed up due to the grant. The minimum return in 9 months was 35% and the highest 85%. On an annualised basis that’s 50% and 200%.


This demonstrates the impact of crap policy. I also vowed never to participate or capitalise on crap policy ever again.


So yes, I am informed. Are you?

Well aren’t we happy with ourselves

 

[Chameleon75]

Yes, I owned two property companies capitalising on the misery of the GFC and the first home owners grant.

The banks were putting the squeeze on the developers, so being a CA, I designed a sale that looked like a sale for the banks but I didn’t have to pay for them until I sold.

I then sold the properties in sub divided lots, pre title to first home owners cashed up due to the grant. The minimum return in 9 months was 35% and the highest 85%. On an annualised basis that’s 50% and 200%.


This demonstrates the impact of crap policy. I also vowed never to participate or capitalise on crap policy ever again.


So yes, I am informed. Are you?

You’re seriously selling yourself short there, you’re not just a CA but a ****ing genius.

We had $5b worth of forward work put on hold due to funding constraints in the space of 3 days. Banks weren’t lending to new projects at all, even existing projects weren’t getting funded.

Projects that had already topped out couldn’t get funding to complete fit out until they raised pre sale rates to north of 90%. Brookfield multiplex had funding suspended on projects already under construction despite their international backing, even Leigtons couldn’t access funds. The RCH project had financiers walk away and the state government had to step in, ditto Ararat prison.

So if you sir were able to pull one over the banks, that deserves a round of applause.

 

[Rotayjay]

One party wants to continue a tax loophole for property investors to buy further houses and gouge people for the right to live temporarily and get kicked out for no reason. The other party wants to give first home buyers a fighting chance.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

You’re seriously selling yourself short there, you’re not just a CA but a ******* genius.

We had $5b worth of forward work put on hold due to funding constraints in the space of 3 days. Banks weren’t lending to new projects at all, even existing projects weren’t getting funded.

Projects that had already topped out couldn’t get funding to complete fit out until they raised pre sale rates to north of 90%. Brookfield multiplex had funding suspended on projects already under construction despite their international backing, even Leigtons couldn’t access funds. The RCH project had financiers walk away and the state government had to step in, ditto Ararat prison.

So if you sir were able to pull one over the banks, that deserves a round of applause.

It's a different game at the small end of town. I'm guessing what PR did was quite simple:
1. Approach somebody with a big backyard to submit a development approval on their behalf for a subdivision
2. When the DA is approved, negotiate to buy it from them with something like a 120 day settlement
3. Sell the subdivided blocks on a 60 day settlement
4. Pay the landowner with the deposits from the people buying the new lots.

I'm probably missing a step or two in there but that's the general gist. It was fairly common a few years back IIRC, probably still was until the banks cracked down on that sort of lending. Not sure what about it was particularly "crap" or evil in anyway but it's a fairly innocuous way of being a property developer seeing as utility connections and a driveway were probably all that needed to be installed as part of the DA; might have only been $20,000 per block.

Very different game in the tier 1 space.

 

[Rotayjay]

In the suburb I used to live in, there was quite a lot of subdivision and infill.

I'm strongly in favour of it, as I'm in favour of affordable housing and I watched a lot of ugly quarter-acre pieces of crap turned into beautiful townhouses.

 

[Power Raid]

One party wants to continue a tax loophole for property investors to buy further houses and gouge people for the right to live temporarily and get kicked out for no reason. The other party wants to give first home buyers a fighting chance.

If only your understanding was correct, there wouldn’t be opposition to the policy.

If only there was understanding of the policy, there’d be no support.

 

[Power Raid]

It's a different game at the small end of town. I'm guessing what PR did was quite simple:
1. Approach somebody with a big backyard to submit a development approval on their behalf for a subdivision
2. When the DA is approved, negotiate to buy it from them with something like a 120 day settlement
3. Sell the subdivided blocks on a 60 day settlement
4. Pay the landowner with the deposits from the people buying the new lots.

I'm probably missing a step or two in there but that's the general gist. It was fairly common a few years back IIRC, probably still was until the banks cracked down on that sort of lending. Not sure what about it was particularly "crap" or evil in anyway but it's a fairly innocuous way of being a property developer seeing as utility connections and a driveway were probably all that needed to be installed as part of the DA; might have only been $20,000 per block.

Very different game in the tier 1 space.

Close

The counter parties were three of the for biggest land developers in WA.... tier 1. Each parcel was over 100 lots pre subdivision

I had inside knowledge of the land developers woes due to Jewish families who had been approached to bail them out. So I partnered with one of the sons, who I studied my CA with along with a house land package specialist.



Stepping back though, the opportunity was there due to poor policy. Labor’s poor policy will create opportunity again as this same policy did in the 80s before being repealed.

Who pays the price though.......the retail market and ordinary people through higher rents, less jobs and higher costs due to inefficiencies.

 

[Power Raid]

You’re seriously selling yourself short there, you’re not just a CA but a ******* genius.

We had $5b worth of forward work put on hold due to funding constraints in the space of 3 days. Banks weren’t lending to new projects at all, even existing projects weren’t getting funded.

Projects that had already topped out couldn’t get funding to complete fit out until they raised pre sale rates to north of 90%. Brookfield multiplex had funding suspended on projects already under construction despite their international backing, even Leigtons couldn’t access funds. The RCH project had financiers walk away and the state government had to step in, ditto Ararat prison.

So if you sir were able to pull one over the banks, that deserves a round of applause.

I put cheeky bids on the second bhp brooksfield tower opportunity, Deutsche banks Woodside and Raine Square post the worst of GFC.

Brookfield was low chance, Woodside fell over as the tenant wouldn’t sign on and the Raine Square fire bombings and union thuggery wasn’t appealing.

Oh and a part owner of Raine Square was jailed last week for 7 years for arson. Clearly colourful

 

[Chameleon75]

It's a different game at the small end of town. I'm guessing what PR did was quite simple:
1. Approach somebody with a big backyard to submit a development approval on their behalf for a subdivision
2. When the DA is approved, negotiate to buy it from them with something like a 120 day settlement
3. Sell the subdivided blocks on a 60 day settlement
4. Pay the landowner with the deposits from the people buying the new lots.

I'm probably missing a step or two in there but that's the general gist. It was fairly common a few years back IIRC, probably still was until the banks cracked down on that sort of lending. Not sure what about it was particularly "crap" or evil in anyway but it's a fairly innocuous way of being a property developer seeing as utility connections and a driveway were probably all that needed to be installed as part of the DA; might have only been $20,000 per block.

Very different game in the tier 1 space.

I was doing housing and land development on the side, money dried up across the board.

 

[Frank Grimes]

This is two elections in a row Labor has had this policy on negative gearing and it has now been defeated. It is looking like Shorten is going to step aside.

It will be interesting to see what happens now regarding this. Will it retained, changed or scrapped?

It is unclear how much influence this policy has had on the election. There are a few demographics involved. In general for every renter there is a Landlord ( majority of investors have one property). There may also be homeowners who could fall for a scare campaign of their property dropping in value ( I personally don't think the policy would have much of an effect on prices).

 

[Eastern Rangers]

This is two elections in a row Labor has had this policy on negative gearing and it has now been defeated. It is looking like Shorten is going to step aside.

It will be interesting to see what happens now regarding this. Will it retained, changed or scrapped?

It is unclear how much influence this policy has had on the election. There are a few demographics involved. In general for every renter there is a Landlord ( majority of investors have one property). There may also be homeowners who could fall for a scare campaign of their property dropping in value ( I personally don't think the policy would have much of an effect on prices).

A lot of noise about nothing. Negative gearing is only useful when capital gains can be relied upon by speculators, with housing prices likely to remain in a deflationary trend for some time it was a perfect time to remove the impose from the market before the market stabilised and capital growth returned. Maybe market it differently and simply deny deny deny.

Labor should probably stick to substantial reform of the superannuation system. Probably hide their intentions in a broader review of the system. The cost of Divided imputation on working aged Australians is too high and the effects on the market are distortionary.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Pessimistic]

If the prices were still rising, the policy may have been more popular