Lets talk about Investments
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'll rephrase, profiteering from residential property investment is immoral.
I wouldn't be that harsh. It really depends on what you do.
My parents spend a lot of time fixing up run down properties that have potentials and profit from this "hobby". To them it is getting something into a good hand rather than gouging people who couldn't have afford it. The price is always set by the market, so it isn't a matter of how much you sell it because someone will. It is really a demand and supply at work here.
Now if lying and fraud are involved, then yeah, profiting from residential real estate investment is immoral.
i'll rephrase, profiteering from residential property investment is immoral.
I wouldn't be that harsh. It really depends on what you do.
My parents spend a lot of time fixing up run down properties that have potentials and profit from this "hobby". To them it is getting something into a good hand rather than gouging people who couldn't have afford it. The price is always set by the market, so it isn't a matter of how much you sell it because someone will. It is really a demand and supply at work here.
Now if lying and fraud are involved, then yeah, profiting from residential real estate investment is immoral.
Pandabear,
I'm with crinkles, and I don't believe that what you are suggesting is immoral. People who buy low, sell high, people who buy a run down wreck, renovate, and sell for profit, people who buy a big block, subdivide and sell two houses in a wealthy area, IMO is an entrepreneur at work, and I have no probs.
Where I DO have a problem, and wouldn't ever personally do it is people who buy for the "rental market".
Down here, you cannot claim the interest on your own home against your tax, but can on "investment" properties. So the taxpayer is helping pay off your second and third houses, as well as the renter, whose capacity to save for their own home is eroded by paying you rent every week.
I've heard such "investors" say that they don't care what a property costs, as the interest is a tax deduction, and the rental rate is fixed by a percentage of the sale price.
I've heard them say that "the first one is the hardest, then they pay for themselves"...well they don't really, someone else does...and everyone else' entry into the property market is inflated.
And I know a bloke with 10 properties "paying for themselves", who was made an offer on a prime place, sold, and then had to buy another 3 in his district to avoid paying gains taxes on his sale.
That's the immoral area of the market.
Oz Productivity Commission has recommended either removing the ttax deduction on property for second, third and fourth properties, or allowing a tax deduction for the primary residence to try to level the playing field between people trying to buy somewhere to live, and people investing in other people's toil.
Will never happen.
I'm with crinkles, and I don't believe that what you are suggesting is immoral. People who buy low, sell high, people who buy a run down wreck, renovate, and sell for profit, people who buy a big block, subdivide and sell two houses in a wealthy area, IMO is an entrepreneur at work, and I have no probs.
Where I DO have a problem, and wouldn't ever personally do it is people who buy for the "rental market".
Down here, you cannot claim the interest on your own home against your tax, but can on "investment" properties. So the taxpayer is helping pay off your second and third houses, as well as the renter, whose capacity to save for their own home is eroded by paying you rent every week.
I've heard such "investors" say that they don't care what a property costs, as the interest is a tax deduction, and the rental rate is fixed by a percentage of the sale price.
I've heard them say that "the first one is the hardest, then they pay for themselves"...well they don't really, someone else does...and everyone else' entry into the property market is inflated.
And I know a bloke with 10 properties "paying for themselves", who was made an offer on a prime place, sold, and then had to buy another 3 in his district to avoid paying gains taxes on his sale.
That's the immoral area of the market.
Oz Productivity Commission has recommended either removing the ttax deduction on property for second, third and fourth properties, or allowing a tax deduction for the primary residence to try to level the playing field between people trying to buy somewhere to live, and people investing in other people's toil.
Will never happen.
well said. i'm all for the tax reform. crazy that the rich folks (or rather people who have been able to enter the real estate market) can get tax deductions on subsequent homes! the rich get richer.
How is it that an engineer with 5 years experience can't afford a below average 3 bedroom house in the country??? because i came to australia with nothing, i had no capital to begin with, and now it is like i am doomed to a sub middle class existance due to the crazy state of the real estate market in australia.
How is it that an engineer with 5 years experience can't afford a below average 3 bedroom house in the country??? because i came to australia with nothing, i had no capital to begin with, and now it is like i am doomed to a sub middle class existance due to the crazy state of the real estate market in australia.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Oz Productivity Commission has recommended either removing the ttax deduction on property for second, third and fourth properties, or allowing a tax deduction for the primary residence to try to level the playing field between people trying to buy somewhere to live, and people investing in other people's toil.
Will never happen.
which political parties are interested in making this happen?
Oz Productivity Commission has recommended either removing the ttax deduction on property for second, third and fourth properties, or allowing a tax deduction for the primary residence to try to level the playing field between people trying to buy somewhere to live, and people investing in other people's toil.
Will never happen.
which political parties are interested in making this happen?
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i really can't convince myself to buy metals ... it doesn't pay income, and returns are pretty mediocre, less than what i can get in the bank, so why bother???
I don't know, I'm up 180% over the past 12 months in my metals fund. That seems like a pretty good return
i really can't convince myself to buy metals ... it doesn't pay income, and returns are pretty mediocre, less than what i can get in the bank, so why bother???
I don't know, I'm up 180% over the past 12 months in my metals fund. That seems like a pretty good return
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
Aside from that... I want to invest into some real estate for myself and as rental properties and seeing as I have saved what I have, I could easily get a rental property to help accelerate my financial plan.
Did our Canadian brothers have a vapor economy floated with real estate? Demographics is going to have housing dirt cheap here starting in the next 10 years. What we have in my urban hamlet is people moving out and real estate agents just renting houses. It was virtually unthinkable to make a single home work in town. It was cheaper to buy. It required a 3 unit or greater to carry itself. Two units were only viable for someone wanting help with their mortgage.
I think that there's long term benefits with liabilities. Getting mortgages is not as easy due to our current situation and less people can qualify for them, so the supply of clients probably won't run short. The viability of the available clients may decline and you're the one juggling the devolution.
Aside from that... I want to invest into some real estate for myself and as rental properties and seeing as I have saved what I have, I could easily get a rental property to help accelerate my financial plan.
Did our Canadian brothers have a vapor economy floated with real estate? Demographics is going to have housing dirt cheap here starting in the next 10 years. What we have in my urban hamlet is people moving out and real estate agents just renting houses. It was virtually unthinkable to make a single home work in town. It was cheaper to buy. It required a 3 unit or greater to carry itself. Two units were only viable for someone wanting help with their mortgage.
I think that there's long term benefits with liabilities. Getting mortgages is not as easy due to our current situation and less people can qualify for them, so the supply of clients probably won't run short. The viability of the available clients may decline and you're the one juggling the devolution.
We didn't have the same mess you did because our industry is still heavily regulated which protected us for the most part so although real estate prices are down they aren't insanely low and people aren't going bankrupt or didn't go bankrupt because of the same reasons.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Pandabear,
I'm with crinkles, and I don't believe that what you are suggesting is immoral. People who buy low, sell high, people who buy a run down wreck, renovate, and sell for profit, people who buy a big block, subdivide and sell two houses in a wealthy area, IMO is an entrepreneur at work, and I have no probs.
Where I DO have a problem, and wouldn't ever personally do it is people who buy for the "rental market".
Down here, you cannot claim the interest on your own home against your tax, but can on "investment" properties. So the taxpayer is helping pay off your second and third houses, as well as the renter, whose capacity to save for their own home is eroded by paying you rent every week.
I've heard such "investors" say that they don't care what a property costs, as the interest is a tax deduction, and the rental rate is fixed by a percentage of the sale price.
I've heard them say that "the first one is the hardest, then they pay for themselves"...well they don't really, someone else does...and everyone else' entry into the property market is inflated.
And I know a bloke with 10 properties "paying for themselves", who was made an offer on a prime place, sold, and then had to buy another 3 in his district to avoid paying gains taxes on his sale.
That's the immoral area of the market.
Oz Productivity Commission has recommended either removing the ttax deduction on property for second, third and fourth properties, or allowing a tax deduction for the primary residence to try to level the playing field between people trying to buy somewhere to live, and people investing in other people's toil.
Will never happen.
Shannow and Crinkles,
I see. That's a very bad situation when no more new home for sale and plenty for rent. But wouldn't the rent price fall as a result and having it balance out? I'm not suggesting that it is moral but I would though that it should be dropping to a balanced number.
In the US (at least in the Silicon Valley, Kalifornia), things are the opposite. We have many people who want to avoid paying taxes by using the mortgage interest deduction, so they keep moving to more expensive homes and drove up the price. Rent is not deductible so there is a huge jump going from renting to buying, and between a rental property (large multi unit apartment) and a user home (single to double unit).
Right here rent does not cover all the expense, and people only use rental property to park their money against inflation.
Pandabear,
I'm with crinkles, and I don't believe that what you are suggesting is immoral. People who buy low, sell high, people who buy a run down wreck, renovate, and sell for profit, people who buy a big block, subdivide and sell two houses in a wealthy area, IMO is an entrepreneur at work, and I have no probs.
Where I DO have a problem, and wouldn't ever personally do it is people who buy for the "rental market".
Down here, you cannot claim the interest on your own home against your tax, but can on "investment" properties. So the taxpayer is helping pay off your second and third houses, as well as the renter, whose capacity to save for their own home is eroded by paying you rent every week.
I've heard such "investors" say that they don't care what a property costs, as the interest is a tax deduction, and the rental rate is fixed by a percentage of the sale price.
I've heard them say that "the first one is the hardest, then they pay for themselves"...well they don't really, someone else does...and everyone else' entry into the property market is inflated.
And I know a bloke with 10 properties "paying for themselves", who was made an offer on a prime place, sold, and then had to buy another 3 in his district to avoid paying gains taxes on his sale.
That's the immoral area of the market.
Oz Productivity Commission has recommended either removing the ttax deduction on property for second, third and fourth properties, or allowing a tax deduction for the primary residence to try to level the playing field between people trying to buy somewhere to live, and people investing in other people's toil.
Will never happen.
Shannow and Crinkles,
I see. That's a very bad situation when no more new home for sale and plenty for rent. But wouldn't the rent price fall as a result and having it balance out? I'm not suggesting that it is moral but I would though that it should be dropping to a balanced number.
In the US (at least in the Silicon Valley, Kalifornia), things are the opposite. We have many people who want to avoid paying taxes by using the mortgage interest deduction, so they keep moving to more expensive homes and drove up the price. Rent is not deductible so there is a huge jump going from renting to buying, and between a rental property (large multi unit apartment) and a user home (single to double unit).
Right here rent does not cover all the expense, and people only use rental property to park their money against inflation.
Panda Bear,
the whole idea is that rent doesn't cover all of the expenses, so the interest and any maintenance and outstanding costs become a tax deduction.
Heck, the flight to the Gold Coast to "inspect" the property annually is a tax deduction...funnily enough the people I know all have at least one house near the Gold Coast.
Can't deduct anything on the family home.
the whole idea is that rent doesn't cover all of the expenses, so the interest and any maintenance and outstanding costs become a tax deduction.
Heck, the flight to the Gold Coast to "inspect" the property annually is a tax deduction...funnily enough the people I know all have at least one house near the Gold Coast.
Can't deduct anything on the family home.
We can only deduct a loss of only $3000US a year, regardless of how much you lose, but you can roll it on to another year if your loss exceed that.
One guy I used to work for had made money in stock then lose it all, so he paid taxes on money he didn't made (or made then lose), and can deduct $3k a year till the day he die (unless he lives to 200 years old).
One guy I used to work for had made money in stock then lose it all, so he paid taxes on money he didn't made (or made then lose), and can deduct $3k a year till the day he die (unless he lives to 200 years old).
I've sorta been turned off from the whole investing thing.
My idea is to live below my means, and work til the day I die. That sounds like a great plan to me, and it's much less stressful than trying to figure out who's bailin out who, and what's going on at the Fed, and what's gonna happen to the dollar, and if my house is going down in value, etc.
I just say heck with it, and live.
My idea is to live below my means, and work til the day I die. That sounds like a great plan to me, and it's much less stressful than trying to figure out who's bailin out who, and what's going on at the Fed, and what's gonna happen to the dollar, and if my house is going down in value, etc.
I just say heck with it, and live.
Originally Posted By: crinkles
how do you keep your metals? ETF? physical??
To allow these descendant parasites at gold cartel to suppress price of my gold and silver by short-selling of what they don't have using unlimited access to Fed money and a help of ETFs, thereby, to allow them to continue their fraud ? Never ! Only physical "under a pillow" and in a garden. (And let them try to confiscate it once again !
) Another critical point is there is a very high probability that what's actually available at vaults will not be enough to satisfy even allocated accounts owners.
Blight on Humanity Addendum
how do you keep your metals? ETF? physical??
To allow these descendant parasites at gold cartel to suppress price of my gold and silver by short-selling of what they don't have using unlimited access to Fed money and a help of ETFs, thereby, to allow them to continue their fraud ? Never ! Only physical "under a pillow" and in a garden. (And let them try to confiscate it once again !
Blight on Humanity Addendum
Just some more details on A Blight On Humanity and a little bit of speculations on what is exported from the US under Gold Compounds. As for possible gold bullion sales, the first idea that comes to a mind is that guys from Cartel are selling gold to themselves. Well, but it would be very stupid from their side to have so much money available though different Fed programs and swaps to foreign central banks and not to use such a wonderful opportunity to fill in personal vaults by PM on the eve of a new order.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Pandabear,
I'm with crinkles, and I don't believe that what you are suggesting is immoral. People who buy low, sell high, people who buy a run down wreck, renovate, and sell for profit, people who buy a big block, subdivide and sell two houses in a wealthy area, IMO is an entrepreneur at work, and I have no probs.
Where I DO have a problem, and wouldn't ever personally do it is people who buy for the "rental market".
Down here, you cannot claim the interest on your own home against your tax, but can on "investment" properties. So the taxpayer is helping pay off your second and third houses, as well as the renter, whose capacity to save for their own home is eroded by paying you rent every week.
I've heard such "investors" say that they don't care what a property costs, as the interest is a tax deduction, and the rental rate is fixed by a percentage of the sale price.
I've heard them say that "the first one is the hardest, then they pay for themselves"...well they don't really, someone else does...and everyone else' entry into the property market is inflated.
And I know a bloke with 10 properties "paying for themselves", who was made an offer on a prime place, sold, and then had to buy another 3 in his district to avoid paying gains taxes on his sale.
That's the immoral area of the market.
Oz Productivity Commission has recommended either removing the ttax deduction on property for second, third and fourth properties, or allowing a tax deduction for the primary residence to try to level the playing field between people trying to buy somewhere to live, and people investing in other people's toil.
Will never happen.
What you're describing is one of my principal objections to our tax code. You reward "wealth parking" with tax subsidize in the form of avoided costs.
It's typically risk free pseudo entrepreneurialism.
You save far more than you truly earn in the action. You can literally lose money and come out on top.
Pandabear,
I'm with crinkles, and I don't believe that what you are suggesting is immoral. People who buy low, sell high, people who buy a run down wreck, renovate, and sell for profit, people who buy a big block, subdivide and sell two houses in a wealthy area, IMO is an entrepreneur at work, and I have no probs.
Where I DO have a problem, and wouldn't ever personally do it is people who buy for the "rental market".
Down here, you cannot claim the interest on your own home against your tax, but can on "investment" properties. So the taxpayer is helping pay off your second and third houses, as well as the renter, whose capacity to save for their own home is eroded by paying you rent every week.
I've heard such "investors" say that they don't care what a property costs, as the interest is a tax deduction, and the rental rate is fixed by a percentage of the sale price.
I've heard them say that "the first one is the hardest, then they pay for themselves"...well they don't really, someone else does...and everyone else' entry into the property market is inflated.
And I know a bloke with 10 properties "paying for themselves", who was made an offer on a prime place, sold, and then had to buy another 3 in his district to avoid paying gains taxes on his sale.
That's the immoral area of the market.
Oz Productivity Commission has recommended either removing the ttax deduction on property for second, third and fourth properties, or allowing a tax deduction for the primary residence to try to level the playing field between people trying to buy somewhere to live, and people investing in other people's toil.
Will never happen.
What you're describing is one of my principal objections to our tax code. You reward "wealth parking" with tax subsidize in the form of avoided costs.
It's typically risk free pseudo entrepreneurialism.
You save far more than you truly earn in the action. You can literally lose money and come out on top.
Originally Posted By: msparks
I've sorta been turned off from the whole investing thing.
My idea is to live below my means, and work til the day I die. That sounds like a great plan to me, and it's much less stressful than trying to figure out who's bailin out who, and what's going on at the Fed, and what's gonna happen to the dollar, and if my house is going down in value, etc.
I just say heck with it, and live.
And if something bad happens to you and you can't work? Not a very good plan IMO.
I've sorta been turned off from the whole investing thing.
My idea is to live below my means, and work til the day I die. That sounds like a great plan to me, and it's much less stressful than trying to figure out who's bailin out who, and what's going on at the Fed, and what's gonna happen to the dollar, and if my house is going down in value, etc.
I just say heck with it, and live.
And if something bad happens to you and you can't work? Not a very good plan IMO.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Panda Bear,
the whole idea is that rent doesn't cover all of the expenses, so the interest and any maintenance and outstanding costs become a tax deduction.
We can only deduct a loss of only $3000US a year, regardless of how much you lose, but you can roll it on to another year if your loss exceed that.
Panda you're talking about capital loss. He's talking about rental income/loss; they go by different rules. There is no $3000 loss credit for losses stemming from rental activity.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Panda Bear,
the whole idea is that rent doesn't cover all of the expenses, so the interest and any maintenance and outstanding costs become a tax deduction.
We can only deduct a loss of only $3000US a year, regardless of how much you lose, but you can roll it on to another year if your loss exceed that.
Panda you're talking about capital loss. He's talking about rental income/loss; they go by different rules. There is no $3000 loss credit for losses stemming from rental activity.
My suggestion is to avoid rental real estate. I used to own 8 units and it was a huge hassle. Tenants are fricking annoying. Most people complain about landlords but try being one some day and you'll hate tenants more than landlords. How about the time this old lady brought in 30 stray cats, which was prohibited by the lease, then stopped paying rent, then caused $1000 of damage because of the cats, then left just before the eviction notice was coming. That was just one story.
I made a measly return on the properties, probably the same as if I put it in a 5 year CD, but considering the headache factor I might as well consider those investments as losses.
If you DO decide to go into real estate, invest in high-end units that attract professionals. Probably 4/5ths of the low-end market are deadbeats and losers.
I made a measly return on the properties, probably the same as if I put it in a 5 year CD, but considering the headache factor I might as well consider those investments as losses.
If you DO decide to go into real estate, invest in high-end units that attract professionals. Probably 4/5ths of the low-end market are deadbeats and losers.
- Status
