Mega Thread The Random Thoughts Thread Part 1

[Doctor Feel]

Some of the posts in here are beginning to sound a hell of alot like communism.

 

[Portia]

Some of the posts in here are beginning to sound a hell of alot like communism.

GIVE ME YOUR SHOES

 

[Doctor Feel]

GIVE ME YOUR SHOES

My shoes belong to the state, pal.

You wouldn't want them anyway, they have a leather sole and I almost died yesterday when it sprinkled with rain and it was like walking on ice.

 

[chiwigi]

No it isn't, but it is a mechanism that offers a market based incentive for investors to provide affordable rented housing.

It's not market based, its tax based.

It also has no effect on rent prices, in fact it was shown to raise them when it was brought back. It's a vote getter for the middle classes and a money raiser for those earning over $250k.

 

[bomberclifford]

Getting rid of negative gearing is not creating a tax, it is getting rid of concessions that only the affluent can get. That's why it's unfair.

Reducing personal income tax just because you can afford to buy a spare property is a ridiculous concept.

Nearly as ridiculous as the argument that it's for the public good!

1. Anybody who wishes to leverage their debt has access to it. You don't need to be 'affluent'.
2. It only reduces an investors tax because the investment is run at a loss, ie charge less rent (income) than the property costs to purchase and maintain (expenses).
3. If and when the property is sold, a capital gains tax is payable.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

FWIW, I don't own an investment property, nor am I planning on getting one. I just don't get the feeling that it is somehow a 'scam' for rich folk to take advantage of.

 

[Portia]

My shoes belong to the state, pal.

You wouldn't want them anyway, they have a leather sole and I almost died yesterday when it sprinkled with rain and it was like walking on ice.

Oh heavens it was raining and I almost fainted, I very nearly misplaced my parasol

 

[Lagooner]

You're talking about introducing a system whose overheads would comfortably outweigh any imaginable gains.

Well that's debatable since neither of us has done a proper analysis. We don't know what the overheads would be, how much revenue could be generated or the long term impact/relief it provides to the health system.

I guess I should've suggested something more popular and not try to take people's candy.

I'll never make it as a politician!

 

[chiwigi]

1. Anybody who wishes to leverage their debt has access to it. You don't need to be 'affluent'.
2. It only reduces an investors tax because the investment is run at a loss, ie charge less rent (income) than the property costs to purchase and maintain (expenses).
3. If and when the property is sold, a capital gains tax is payable.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

FWIW, I don't own an investment property, nor am I planning on getting one. I just don't get the feeling that it is somehow a 'scam' for rich folk to take advantage of.

1. LOL
2. Then it's a poor investment, tax concessions should not cover that. t also distorts the market for people who want to buy a house to actually live in.
3. Easily avoided and can be reduced when you get rid of negative gearing.

 

[BIG BILLY F]

Most people in Perth won't be able to afford a house soon enough...unless they want a 2 by 1...

If 21 years old and under .....pray mummy and daddy will help you otherwise you will be renting the rest of your life....

Anyone that owns multiple properties in Perth.....man in a few years time its going to be all gravy

 

[Doctor Feel]

Just cap the price of NRAS houses and stop building ****ing mcmansions. The plans are literally all the same these days anyway.

 

[raman]

Well that's debatable since neither of us has done a proper analysis. We don't know what the overheads would be, how much revenue could be generated or the long term impact/relief it provides to the health system.

I guess I should've suggested something more popular and not try to take people's candy.

I'll never make it as a politician!

All good, you're up against it trying to construe a theoretical junk food tax as anything other than a tax that's specific to cheap "fast food" franchises, and therefore more or less a tax on the poor(er). That's all it could ever be because anything more would be both impractical and witheringly unpopular right across the political spectrum.

 

[Dylan8]

From my limited knowledge it looks like a tax that reduces the risk of investment properties. This means more people from the upper-middle to upper class buying up investment properties which in turn raises housing prices and shuts poor people out of the market or forces them to rent. While it's a different era and home ownership isn't a god given right as you say bc, I still think renting shouldn't be more and more coming the 'norm' as its a less stable way to live, possibly bouncing from place to place.

Meanwhile investors get billions in tax cuts which is money that is currently being stripped from government services and welfare.

 

[Lagooner]

All good, you're up against it trying to construe a theoretical junk food tax as anything other than a tax that's specific to cheap "fast food" franchises, and therefore more or less a tax on the poor(er). That's all it could ever be because anything more would be both impractical and witheringly unpopular right across the political spectrum.

Maybe I'm coming at it from the wrong angle.

How about calculating the Medicare Surcharge by multiplying a base rate with your BMI?

 

[Dylan8]

Have we tried 'kill all the poor'?

 

[raman]

Have we tried 'kill all the poor'?

It would be an interesting way to demonstrate to the rich that they didn't manage to magically create wealth in a vacuum.

 

[Lagooner]

Have we tried 'kill all the poor'?

I dunno, kill the rich and redistribute their wealth seems like a fairer way to go.

 

[raman]

Maybe I'm coming at it from the wrong angle.

How about calculating the Medicare Surcharge by multiplying a base rate with your BMI?

Amphetimine dealers love this idea.

 

[bomberclifford]

 

[Portia]

While it's a different era and home ownership isn't a god given right as you say bc, I still think renting shouldn't be more and more coming the 'norm' as its a less stable way to live, possibly bouncing from place to place.

I actually disagree, we're in a situation where you no longer get employment for life by one company in one location, and I think we're increasingly going to see people who bought a property in good faith get ****ed when the work goes elsewhere. We're already seeing this most dramatically in former mining towns and country towns in general.

 

[Lagooner]

Amphetimine dealers love this idea.

"Honey I'm just trying to maximize our refund, I swear!"

 

[charcolechaddy]

Couldn't agree more, which is why I said "any rubbish food".

Mick D's was just one example. Rinehart's double fudge whale sundae is just as tax worthy.

Rinehart should be taxed by the total amount she is over her BMI.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

How about we just kill the government

 

[Steve Dore]

I could go one of these right now... tax me ya campaigners

You shouldn't post pornographic images on this forum.

 

[LukeSA]

Yeesh, that's good to know, just had an interview with the housing trust, apparently the manager of the southern branch gave us the ok to live here but was overruled by higher ups on monday afternoon, instead of 12 weeks to find a new house it's 8 weeks because it's backdated to the day mum passed away. They might give us an opportunity to buy the house from them but would probably need a stupidly high deposit.

Best of all, the new tenants will most likely be "users". To think all the hard work we have put into this house over the 18 years all to have some scum meth-head come and most probably wreck it, Ok we might be trust tenants but we always took pride in our house.

 

[bacharach]

Yeesh, that's good to know, just had an interview with the housing trust, apparently the manager of the southern branch gave us the ok to live here but was overruled by higher ups on monday afternoon, instead of 12 weeks to find a new house it's 8 weeks because it's backdated to the day mum passed away. They might give us an opportunity to buy the house from them but would probably need a stupidly high deposit.

Best of all, the new tenants will most likely be "users". To think all the hard work we have put into this house over the 18 years all to have some scum meth-head come and most probably wreck it, Ok we might be trust tenants but we always took pride in our house.

Sorry man. That is absolutely criminal, especially given what you're already going through. Hopefully you catch a break in some way and can find a new place to call home.