Hi All, So I have two investment properties (previously my PPORs) and am in a position to purchase another investment but first decided I should educate myself properly on property investing (I know something I should have done long ago). I always considered that as long as the property was at least paying the interest/expenses then that was great, and anything that I had to contribute to pay off the principal was fine. So I am reading the Investment books, forums and analysing my current investments and potentials trying to work out how to move forward……. Property 1 - almost makes me break even for the loan repayment, but I still have to pay tax on the principal payment so it is costing me. CG has likely peaked. Property 2 - covers the interest/expenses and about 1/2 of the principal and I am paying the rest out of my own pocket. Unlikely to have any CG. So both my properties have positively geared, do I understand that correctly? And as I see it the only way to get actual positive cash flow from my properties is to throw a considerable lump sum now at them so that the rent results in enough remaining cash to cover the tax bill as well. But long term as the depreciation reduces and the tax bill increases it is not sustainable, so then they would have to sell or have the money again coming out of my own pocket (which might be worth the difference considering selling costs). So am I getting this right? So about my next investment property, if my sydney property which is a low loan with great rent can not even result in cash in my bank, I am not sure how anything else could actually do it these days (that is avoiding risky mining towns)?! So I wonder if people would generally just happy to be paying the holding costs themselves or if this is a big no no?? Thanks for any advice!