Australia housing bubble

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by GREGL

Depends on foreign investment rules doesn't it. Oz is still a nice place to aspire to, and for the time being a reasonably tolerate place.

1 million Kiwis can't be wrong ?? Lol

I was referring to the Japanese asset bubble of the early 90's and the lost decade there.

The idea that property always increases in value after a correction was not the Japanese experience.

It could easily happen here...

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by GREGL

Depends on foreign investment rules doesn't it. Oz is still a nice place to aspire to, and for the time being a reasonably tolerate place.

1 million Kiwis can't be wrong ?? Lol

Actually statistics last year showed that for the first time in 25 years more people moved to NZ from Aus than left NZ for Australia, the majority of those leaving Aus for NZ where Kiwis moving back home....

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

For me a house is for you to live in, not an investment .

True, I feel they same, but I have been tempted to get an investment house. Everyone else is doing, I feel like I'm missing out buy not doing it.

[Rallye Sport]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Perth's issues are mainly due to the mining boom slowly so much. Hardly relevant to Melb or Sydney.

Everyone on the eastern side thinks all of us Westralians work in the mines. Not so, Half are internationals or interstaters chasing the dollar. After that half are local family types and the rest would be the young crew blowing it all on hookers, maloo's and dirtbikes.

I hear you Mercury Bullet, theres alot of greed and they'll get burnt.

I'm more of the 'Kerrigan' type, we worked hard to buy and pay for the house, no interest in an investment, its time to enjoy life, for me to gather up the cars I missed out on and for the mrs to work on her shoe and handbag collection, all of the things we couldn't do while paying a morgage.

[GASWAGON]

Clearence rates for both Sydney and Melbourne yesterday were 80% and 83%.

So its not flattening out or even softening at the moment.

[Trump]

https://www.domain.com.au/news/the-w...170501-gvvztk/

[GASWAGON]

Lets see what Turnbull and Co bring to tomorrows budget?

[lgpking22]

tax cuts for rich and a kick in the guts for poor people like all budgets from those scum sucking leeches

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by lgpking22

tax cuts for rich and a kick in the guts for poor people like all budgets from those scum sucking leeches

From memory any tax cut in the past by any government was at the most $10 a week if you were lucky, who ever got rich out of that ? If you add up all those little $10 amounts across the board your bottom line would take a big hit.

However if you give a tax break to your company that money might just get you a new machine, a forklift, perhaps even a new truck. Sure the bossman gets a new bmw but the trickle down effect if utilized the way it is designed to creates income for more people than an individual $10 bucks ever would.
Which means you get to keep your job and keep paying tax.

Utopia I know but that is the way it is.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by CoolBFWagon

Lets see what Turnbull and Co bring to tomorrows budget?

increased medicare levy on top of policy that forces us to take out private health cover which goes up year on year well above CPI

a tax on banks which will ultimately be passed on to customers, so its really a tax on us

a savings scheme for first home buyers that does nothing to address the problem (lack of supply, too much deductability of expenses, easy access to credit for investors)

this government are imbeciles

[lgpking22]

Originally Posted by GREGL

From memory any tax cut in the past by any government was at the most $10 a week if you were lucky, who ever got rich out of that ? If you add up all those little $10 amounts across the board your bottom line would take a big hit.

However if you give a tax break to your company that money might just get you a new machine, a forklift, perhaps even a new truck. Sure the bossman gets a new bmw but the trickle down effect if utilized the way it is designed to creates income for more people than an individual $10 bucks ever would.
Which means you get to keep your job and keep paying tax.

Utopia I know but that is the way it is.

Not really interested in business or there tax cuts im hard core anarchist id rather burn the whole system to the ground

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by GREGL

From memory any tax cut in the past by any government was at the most $10 a week if you were lucky, who ever got rich out of that ? If you add up all those little $10 amounts across the board your bottom line would take a big hit.

However if you give a tax break to your company that money might just get you a new machine, a forklift, perhaps even a new truck. Sure the bossman gets a new bmw but the trickle down effect if utilized the way it is designed to creates income for more people than an individual $10 bucks ever would.
Which means you get to keep your job and keep paying tax.

Utopia I know but that is the way it is.

So the ultra rich keep telling us.

Fact is, this trickle down tax relief has never worked.
Those CEO's with their multi million dollar wages have never given me one cent!

What gets me, is sheeple keep buying into this bullshizzle.

[xtremerus]

An oldy explaining tax cuts.

How Taxes Work . . .

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too … It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”.

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

[GT0132]

Thats gold mate

[BENT_8]

Well clearly the 9 who beat up the rich guy weren't very smart, they should have flogged his wallet and threatened him for his PIN...

[b0son]

In reality, the rich guy shows up to the restaurant in his Aston, and when the bill comes round, he pulls out $5 for his share because his accountant found a way for him to look poor on paper.

[Doreturnonfoot]

After the budget I can't afford the restaurants - I am now on a gst free diet -
Trick is to minimize the gst when grocery shopping. I am going to sell the car and walk to work = less gst to pay.
Taxed more = less money to spend.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

An oldy explaining tax cuts.

How Taxes Work . . .

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!

<SNIP>

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

Got to love the internet, this one has been doing the rounds for years. So a restaurant owner (a government), is going to return to customers (tax payers), 20% of the value of their bill (tax), because they are all such good customers (the polls said it would get them re-elected).

Yer.. Right, like that would ever happen in either scenario.

I don't like paying tax and reckon I have paid way too much tax over the years, so I will play.

This is an American assessment (at least 10 years old) of how their tax system works, let’s put it in an Australian context.

If it was an Australian restaurant the $100 bill would divvy up like this; the first 3 men would pay nothing, the next 3 would pay $3.67, the next 3 would pay $14 and the richest would pay $47. That's our progressive tax system and the vast majority of Australians agree, "the more you earn the more tax you pay".

Now the restaurant owner (government) is going to cut $20 off the bill (cut 20% off our tax) and the internet fable above asserts that giving 35% of that cut to the top 10% of tax payers is the fairest way to do it!?

So in the Australian context; our government decides to give tax payers a tax cut to the tune of 35billion dollars (20% of personal income tax revenue). The fairest way to do this is to give 35% of the 35billion tax cut to the top 10% of tax payers. So just over 1 million Australians get about 12 billion between them?! And the other 95% of the population can squabble over the remaining 65%?! Does this seem fair to anyone or does it sound like someone trying to justify giving tax cuts to the most wealthy in our community?

And then there is this; "Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore". So wealthy people are going to leave Australia if we tax them too much? I have paid heaps of tax in my life, don't like it but I am very happy to contribute to and live in this country (and I have lived in others).

If any of the top 10% of tax payers in this country want to leave because they can get a better life style somewhere else, don't let the door hit you on the a$$ on the way out...

[smoo]

Too much common sense printed in the press for once.

This bloke has got the self entitled victims in their twenties and thirties up in arms as the truth and a dose of reality slaps them right in the face.


https://www.google.com/amp/www.9news...pending-habits

[Trevor 57]

I haven't read all before, but in my opinion the real estate agents have a fair old responsibility in all this - I reckon they are the new 'used car salespeople' - ripping every one off for their own end, driving prices higher and higher, no-one has really put them under the microscope - they buy into new estates, take a lot of the land just to drive up prices

[Polyal]

Cant blame them, they are just trying to make a buck.

If the demand is there then you need to look at why that is so to bring prices down. With the pussy footing around with neg gearing etc it is quite clear that one of the major reasons why this country hasnt completely fallen apart is because of the property market (IMO).

Manufacturing is going through a rough period, mining is recovering but still downish, govco is pushing infrastructure because no one else will....Coal plants closing, timber plants closing, dairy plants closing....

What is actually keeping the country going? There doesnt seem to be a solid plan for grass roots jobs.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Cant blame them, they are just trying to make a buck

no issue with that, but gouging is another issue all together, they appear to be the good guys, but they aren't

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by Lever T

no issue with that, but gouging is another issue all together, they appear to be the good guys, but they aren't

Gouging? I wouldn't call $12k commission on selling your $900k property gouging. Add to that they take the risk of getting nothing if it doesn't sell.

[xax2]

Originally Posted by Lever T

I haven't read all before, but in my opinion the real estate agents have a fair old responsibility in all this - I reckon they are the new 'used car salespeople' - ripping every one off for their own end, driving prices higher and higher, no-one has really put them under the microscope - they buy into new estates, take a lot of the land just to drive up prices

I've never heard so much BS in a long time! but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have confused 'Real estate agents' with 'Developers' ...they are 2 very separate people......less than 2% of properties that are sold would actually be owned by the agent selling it. (i've been working in the property industry for over 30 years, so I know a bit about the topic).

The buyer and seller sets the price.......if there's no willing buyer, the property won't sell regardless of what the vendor (or THEIR agent) wants.

Housing affordability is a combination of factors:
1. Supply and Demand...prices are higher where people want to live (currently Sydney & Melbourne). This also varies between types of properties and the popularity of Suburbs. Apartments are more affordable than houses because they are currently making more of them and they are not in short supply.
2. Available Credit.....it's been relatively easy and reasonably cheap to borrow money. If that changes, so will house prices.
3. Overseas Investment......we are seen as a solid and stable place to invest, so money has flowed in and pushed up price. But this also connects back into supply. If the supply of homes was greater than the demand, prices would fall.
It's the big cities that have the supply problem and therefore the high house prices, it's not as bad in the regionals. The government needs to create more housing stock in the city by re-zoning OR encourage people to move to the regionals. Commuting around the city is becoming difficult already, so regional cities would be a better solution but jobs will need to be created. Private business will only move there if Government departments move there first (creating populations to do business with).
Unfortunately first home buyers need to realise that the may need to start with something in the less desirable suburbs/areas and work their way up (and that's always been the case even 30 years ago).
Without negative gearing, there would be a real shortage of private rental accommodation, it would be a disaster.
Capital Gains Tax came in in 1987 and was originally discounted for inflation but became difficult to calculate so they made it apply to 50% of the gain which is a much clearer formula.
Developers are not the bad guys either, they have to risk large sums of money and navigate plenty of Government red-tape to create blocks of land.
When the market collapsed in the early '90's the majority of them went broke, and some never recovered. If development land was more plentiful (cheaper) there'd be more blocks for sale, more houses built, therefore less competition for each house, therefore more reasonable prices.
Simple economics.....the price of anything rises when demand out-strips supply.

[danzvtil]

Originally Posted by xax2

I've never heard so much BS in a long time! but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have confused 'Real estate agents' with 'Developers' ...they are 2 very separate people......less than 2% of properties that are sold would actually be owned by the agent selling it. (i've been working in the property industry for over 30 years, so I know a bit about the topic).

The buyer and seller sets the price.......if there's no willing buyer, the property won't sell regardless of what the vendor (or THEIR agent) wants.

Housing affordability is a combination of factors:
1. Supply and Demand...prices are higher where people want to live (currently Sydney & Melbourne). This also varies between types of properties and the popularity of Suburbs. Apartments are more affordable than houses because they are currently making more of them and they are not in short supply.
2. Available Credit.....it's been relatively easy and reasonably cheap to borrow money. If that changes, so will house prices.
3. Overseas Investment......we are seen as a solid and stable place to invest, so money has flowed in and pushed up price. But this also connects back into supply. If the supply of homes was greater than the demand, prices would fall.
It's the big cities that have the supply problem and therefore the high house prices, it's not as bad in the regionals. The government needs to create more housing stock in the city by re-zoning OR encourage people to move to the regionals. Commuting around the city is becoming difficult already, so regional cities would be a better solution but jobs will need to be created. Private business will only move there if Government departments move there first (creating populations to do business with).
Unfortunately first home buyers need to realise that the may need to start with something in the less desirable suburbs/areas and work their way up (and that's always been the case even 30 years ago).
Without negative gearing, there would be a real shortage of private rental accommodation, it would be a disaster.
Capital Gains Tax came in in 1987 and was originally discounted for inflation but became difficult to calculate so they made it apply to 50% of the gain which is a much clearer formula.
Developers are not the bad guys either, they have to risk large sums of money and navigate plenty of Government red-tape to create blocks of land.
When the market collapsed in the early '90's the majority of them went broke, and some never recovered. If development land was more plentiful (cheaper) there'd be more blocks for sale, more houses built, therefore less competition for each house, therefore more reasonable prices.
Simple economics.....the price of anything rises when demand out-strips supply.

Well said, too often people are looking for a scapegoat.
The other chestnut I hear is that the govt need to release more land. Land must be developed in parcels as the cost to do so is very high, developers won't carve up every square inch of available land just so the poor people can have a block at a 40% discount, they'll go broke.
Argue all you like about how many years income a house is today, 40 years ago our parents all scrimped and saved to buy in what was then underdeveloped, less desirable communities.

[xax2]

Originally Posted by danzvtil

Well said, too often people are looking for a scapegoat.
The other chestnut I hear is that the govt need to release more land. Land must be developed in parcels as the cost to do so is very high, developers won't carve up every square inch of available land just so the poor people can have a block at a 40% discount, they'll go broke.
Argue all you like about how many years income a house is today, 40 years ago our parents all scrimped and saved to buy in what was then underdeveloped, less desirable communities.

At the risk of sounding like a mutual admiration society, I full agree.
If you look at the type of house available in the outer suburbs in the 50's it was usually 2 or 3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom , basic weatherboard (half the size of today's homes). The 50's first home buyer realised it might not be close to shops, schools and parkland and many of the new estates had unmade roads in those days. They bought furniture gradually and didn't just put it on the credit card. Their kids often shared bedrooms and the family only had the one car. Compare this with the expectations of today.
I'm certainly not having a go at the first home buyers of today, but many have had a 3 month trip to Europe before starting to save for a house (something their parents wouldn't have done)....sometimes you can't have everything....but please don't complain about the older generation, when you are earning a lot more than they did.
These days, the outer suburbs of the 50's are now the middle suburbs and are no longer affordable for the young, unfortunately, the young home-maker is going to have to do their time in the outer suburbs until they can afford something better (just like we all had to). (yes, I know there were cheap inner suburbs in the '70's but they were horrible then with no services...people took a chance, moved in and fixed them up) maybe the next generation may need to look outside the square and 'fix up' some country towns....they've usually got great old pubs and historic buildings, existing school, maybe even a railway station to the city. Maybe this could be their chance to 'think outside the square'....we all can't live in the trend inner city and it's becoming to crowded anyway.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by xax2

Capital Gains Tax came in in 1987 and was originally discounted for inflation but became difficult to calculate so they made it apply to 50% of the gain which is a much clearer formula.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ed-the-economy

Have a look at the graph titled 'Number of taxpayers earning a rental profit or loss'. Note how the number of negatively geared investors soared after 1999, the year the CGT discount was introduced.

[xax2]

Originally Posted by b0son

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ed-the-economy

Have a look at the graph titled 'Number of taxpayers earning a rental profit or loss'. Note how the number of negatively geared investors soared after 1999, the year the CGT discount was introduced.

Investors paid no Capital Gain Tax prior to 1987...so on that logic it should have been harder for first home buyers back then than it is now! Prices should have been through the roof!
At least now, investors pay tax on 50% of the total gain in value, regardless of how long they've held it. Prior to 1999 there WAS a 'discount' on the CGT you paid, but it was linked to the inflation rate (in fact it was a sizeable discount if you'd owned the property for 10 years as total inflation over that time could be used to reduce the 'profit' they calculated the tax on). By removing the 'inflation over the total period' discount and replacing it with a 50% discount regardless of how long you owned the property, it costs investors more the longer they hold it.....and earns the Government $billions. $Billions more than when there was no Capital Gains Tax prior to 1987 (ie Zero).
Lets get it straight, property investment can be risky, but does have it's rewards for those taking the risk, but it also earns the Government plenty of money through CGT.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of negative gearing as I don't think you should be allowed to claim expenses that exceed the income on the property....that means other tax-payers are subsidising your investment. The investment should be able to stand on it's own two feet. But we need private investment, otherwise we'd have a massive shortfall in rental accommodation and society would struggle to cope with that.

[ebxr8240]

The 3 battlers would keep the receipt and claim it on Centrelink .. Lol..
Talking housing bubble .. This was bought up here a few years ago when interest rates went p near 10% .. Houses out west Sydney was 280 / 350K ..Now same properties are 750 / 950K .. To the guy who said he sold his property and put it in the bank !! I wander how he's going now? All I can can say !! Ive done FINE !! Btw rental has gone from 160 PW to $480 Pw..

[buggerlugs]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/econo...89d79e2e319b8d