Greens to curb negative gearing

My guess is you wont get a loan...LOL

 

There are degrees of speculating, but its all speculating. I have seen people get into deals that looked like sure-fire winners with very minimal risks that turned pair shaped.

Its all speculation. That's my opinion.

 

Call me a speculator or an investor I don't a give a toss either way. Just because you are a speculator does not mean you are reckless I certainly hope not?

Being a speculator is not a dirty word, if you are making money you are doing something right and clearly managing the risks involved

Lets look at investors from Perth who purchased in 2014 in blue chip areas, who thought it was bullet proof where rents never fall may have a different view now.
They probably thought their investment would never fall back in value and rents would continue to rise, they took a calculated risk looking at information that was available.

Same as investors now buying in Perth market 2017, its speculative as the market is still flat or falling, just because they buy in blue areas etc. its still speculative, they are hoping for growth, regardless of the product.

We are all speculators, we can only make decisions on information that is available, but the information may not be accurate regardless. Also we are humans and flawed we may decide to disregard the facts and buy anyway, hoping property will go up in value because we believe it eventually will, we just don't know when, its all speculative.


.

 

How? In an already oversupplied market, if negative gearing were to be removed, many would be forced to list increasing supply. The idea supply would contract, or that landlords would or could raise rents in a market where rental yields are already plumbing record lows, just isn't supported by the most basic principles of economics. There is no feasible scenario in which removing negative gearing right now would even possibly cause a supply contraction. It's just not going to happen.

But this is also the reason negative gearing won't be removed in the way the Greens suggest. It would immediately crash and increasingly vulnerable market. Regulation in a bubble has to have the lightest touch. As Canada is discovering right now, it's very, very easy to go too far and cause a rapid downward spiral, from which sentiment might not recover. Any hope of deflating the market means adjusting policy with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. So even though negative gearing is a problem, it can't just be removed.

If anything it might be phased out very, very slowly, but the much better option for the government is to allow the banks to raise rates slowly and hope that makes enough of a difference. There's not a whole lot else that can be done.

 

Being a littler older and gaining a smidgen of wisdom, I've come to truly believe its all speculating. I think using the word 'invest' as opposed to 'speculate', gives people a greater feeling of safety; "I'm investing.. not speculating, I'll be right."

 

While we are all making up our own definitions for well defined and understood terms, I am going to take it a step further and suggest that given speculating and gambling share some attributes, there is in fact no such thing as speculating. We are all just gambling (#inmyopinion). @Simon Hampel, please update the site tagline to read 'Australian Property Gambling Forums', thank you

 

With gambling, long term you can never beat the house due its inherent edge. With speculating there is no built in house edge, and indeed the player can shift the odds in their favour to get the edge. Gambling and speculating are totally different concepts , whereas investing and speculating are much more closely related imo.

 

I prefer the odds of a speculator come investor

Read this
Poker probability - Wikipedia

 

Bit like playing Lotto, I don't like the odds with this one.

 

Greens should curb themselves, not doing a bad job with 2 down in recent days.

 

In some cases you don't need to beat the house, they simply clip your ticket on entry, not unlike the taxman on entry and exit if you are betting on homes instead of horses

 

There is no upwards pressure on rents, it´s a zero sum game, if a speculator sells because their loss is too much to bear without negative gearing, another investor/speculator/homeowner picks it up and supply/demand does not change. If a former renter picks it up as a home then supply has dropped by 1 but so has demand.

Yields rise over time because prices drop with reduced speculator demand.

No, many property investors have a net income from property, they are not speculating on price rises.

I think the negatively geared property fits the definition of speculation quite well.

Anyway I changed my vote to Labor at the last election purely based on their NG policy. Previously I have always voted National party, but until the coalition does something about NG I won´t be voting for them again. Ultimately I would like to thought so I hope they propose some changes instead of ignoring the issue.

 

Rents rising or falling will only be determined by supply vs demand, and there are many other factors that will impact on how this will play out ie population/immigration, economy, interest rates, jobs etc

 

I don't disagree. Like I've already said, nowadays I see all investing as 'speculating' on a spectrum of risk ranging from low to very high. Personally I have no issue with speculating at all. Most people have equal access to opportunities that are out there so its fair game for all.

 

The greens have FA chance of introducing a bill to parliament to make any law. The cant even work out which country they are citizens of. They are just uni students with ambitions

The greens are democrats that wanted to make a real change after Kernot shagged her way into the ALP. Even Peter Garret didnt choose the Green and chose to follow Kernot

 

What is interesting is that nobody has defined 'privileged investor'. I believe 700,000 investors are ordinary mum and dads, teachers, police, nurses, etc...who earn around $80K a year, who own 1 or 2 investment properties, who are trying to get ahead in life by taking risk and doing something about it, yet they are classified as wealthy, greedy, or privileged investors. Whey don't they portray real facts and understand we are trying to run a property business that provides 'homes' for Australians, where they can feel secure, live comfortably and be part of the community'!
What else are we providing if not just that?

 

I don't believe in 'equality', its just a buzz word. Equality as in free and open access to opportunities for whomever wants to invest? Yes I believe in that equality. I believe people should be equally allowed to take the initiative and have chances to better their life. I am all for that equality.

But 'equality' as in we are all entitled to having equal lots in life, equal share, equal portions, equal wealth etc, that 'equality' I don't believe in that for a second because we all put in efforts which are not equal. I don't believe someone who works their ass off should be taxed more in order for their 'extras' to be given to some bum on center link who turns up to job interviews with multi colored hair and pins and hooks coming out of everywhere, knowing they'll never get the job and having no intention of wanting to work. They deserve to be broke and not get cent from the segment of society who work extra hard to get ahead and actually give a dam.

 

Is it true that Richard Di Natale is changing his surname to Cranium?

 

I too believe in equal opportunities, but equal pay, equal social cohesive income! If I plant 100 trees and I get paid $1 each, but someone else decides it is enough for them to plant 10 trees at $1 too, why do I have to give half of my pay? What incentives are there for any workers to do better, to work harder, to strive for more, if both will be paid equally? How would you feel? That's what some felt like living under state rules, you don't get fired, you don't get much too, but we the state will decide this for you, as you people cannot make such investment decision, we need to make them for you, is that equality?
Please define 'inequality'? Inequality in what, I do not know of two people that are the same and equal, not even my family members!
It sounds great in theory, trust me, I lived in! I suggest all those that support it, pack up their bags only, go to Russia, and make their living there (no worries you will have state housing, state hospitals, state pay, etc...).
It does not work, my 72 year old grandma (no longer living) ended up in hospital in Poland under such system, was kept in corridor until someone would pay a bribe to find a room. If people get paid equally, they resorted to bribes to get ahead, what option was there? I don't blame the people but the system! Where is there innovation and prosperity and charity and giving/volunteering.
If you wish to attend better school, well you better pay someone, if you wish to get an internship as a lawyer you better pay some one, if you wish the doctor to prescribe that necessary medicine that is limited in quantity the state supplies you better pay, and so on and on... It still happens today.
So that was my life 37 years ago, when dad left Poland with suitcases only, escaped the communist country then, as you could not take things with you, so we could start a better life elsewhere, where we had the freedom of speech, freedom to work hard, freedom to choose how we live, freedom to get ahead, now that is equality to me, freedom in opportunity!