Negative gearing.

[Peter Jason]

Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights. Expect to see a reduction in
this benefit in the near future.

The benefits of this tax break has not reduced property prices nor
rent levels. Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!

Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!

BAH!

[Trevor Wilson]

**Negative gearing is a legitimate form of tax minimisation. It is
unlikely to be changed any time soon. However, what does need to be
addressed is the giant rort known as 'capital gains discount'. This
appallingly badly designed structure favours those investing housing
over all other forms of investment. Thanks John Howard for setting the
scene for insane housing price rises.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[Rod Speed]

Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote

> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights.

Dunno, doubt he would risk another broken promise.

> Expect to see a reduction in this benefit in the near future.

Unlikely.

> The benefits of this tax break has notreduced property prices nor rent
> levels.

It was never intended to but it certainly
does increase the available rental stock.

Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!

> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!

Nothing like with negative gearing.

> BAH!

Fuck off sheeple.

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

> Peter Jason wrote

>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights. Expect to see a reduction in
>> this benefit in the near future.

>> The benefits of this tax break has not reduced property prices nor
>> rent levels. Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!

>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!

>> BAH!

> Negative gearing is a legitimate form of tax minimisation.

But is something only the well off can use.

> It is unlikely to be changed any time soon.

Particularly as Albo is unlikely to break two very obvious promises in a
row now.

> However, what does need to be addressed isthe giant rort known as
> 'capital gains discount'.

That isnt a giant rort.

> This appallingly badly designed structure favours thoseinvesting
> housing over all other forms of investment.

And that is a good thing given the shortage of rental housing.

> Thanks John Howard for setting the scene for insane housing price rises.

Bullshit. The reason for that has always been the vast number
of immigrants relative to the rate of new houses builing built.

[Ozix]

Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> Peter Jason wrote
>
>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights.  Expect to see a reduction
>>> in  this benefit in the near future.
>
>>> The benefits of this tax break has not reduced property prices nor
>>> rent levels.  Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!
>
>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!
>
>>>  BAH!
>
>> Negative gearing is a legitimate form of tax minimisation.
>
> But is something only the well off can use.
>
>> It is  unlikely to be changed any time soon.
>
> Particularly as Albo is unlikely to break two very obvious promises in a
> row now.
>
>> However, what does need to be  addressed isthe giant rort known as
>> 'capital gains discount'.
>
> That isnt a giant rort.
>
>> This  appallingly badly designed structure favours thoseinvesting
>> housing  over all other forms of investment.
>
> And that is a good thing given the shortage of rental housing.
>

Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful owner-occupier
is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
rental longer.

[Rod Speed]

Ozix <oz...@xizo.am> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Peter Jason wrote

>>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights.

>>>> Expect to see a reduction in this benefit in the near future.

>>>> The benefits of this tax break has not reduced property prices nor
>>>> rent levels. Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!

>>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!

>>>> BAH!

>>> Negative gearing is a legitimate form of tax minimisation.

>> But is something only the well off can use.

>>> It is unlikely to be changed any time soon.

>> Particularly as Albo is unlikely to breaktwo very obvious promises in

>> a row now.

>>> However, what does need to be addressed is
>>> the giant rort known as 'capital gains discount'.

>> That isnt a giant rort.

>>> This appallingly badly designed structure favours those
>>> investing housing over all other forms of investment.

>> And that is a good thing given the shortage of rental housing.

> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing.

Nope. Plenty are free to use negative gearing
to build new housing and rent it out.

> If hopeful owner-occupier is waiting for insolvent builderto finish

> house, they are staying in rental longer.

That is a tiny part of the rental market.

[Peter Jason]

No, I won't.
Also we're being softened up for a vacancy tax, where unused sites
will incur a tax. Single-person households will have to pay.
Much like the window tax of the 1700s.
The Asian owners of empty high-rise towers expect this.

[Rod Speed]

Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote

>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights.

>> Dunno, doubt he would risk another broken promise.

>>> Expect to see a reduction in this benefit in the near future.

>> Unlikely.

>>> The benefits of this tax break has not
>>> reduced property prices nor rent levels.

>> It was never intended to but it certainly
>> does increase the available rental stock.

>> Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!

>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!

>> Nothing like with negative gearing.

>>> BAH!

>> Fuck off sheeple.

> No, I won't.

OK, the dogs are off their chains.

> Also we're being softened up for a vacancytax, where unused sites will
> incur a tax.

Fantasy

> Single-person households will have to pay.

Even Albo isnt THAT stupid.

> Much like the window tax of the 1700s.

Nothing even remotely like.

> The Asian owners of empty high-rise towers expect this.

Irrelevant to what happens here.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/02/2024 11:01 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> Peter Jason wrote
>
>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights.  Expect to see a reduction
>>> in  this benefit in the near future.
>
>>> The benefits of this tax break has not reduced property prices nor
>>> rent levels.  Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!
>
>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!
>
>>>  BAH!
>
>> Negative gearing is a legitimate form of tax minimisation.
>
> But is something only the well off can use.

**I know a few who use it, but aren't overly well off. It does benefit
any form of investment though. Business, for instance. And housing, of
course.

>
>> It is  unlikely to be changed any time soon.
>
> Particularly as Albo is unlikely to break two very obvious promises in a
> row now.

**Yeah, Dutton fell into that last one. Big time. Fucking idiot.

>
>> However, what does need to be  addressed isthe giant rort known as
>> 'capital gains discount'.
>
> That isnt a giant rort.

**Sure it is. It favours long term investments, over short term ones.
Like housing, for instance.

>
>> This  appallingly badly designed structure favours thoseinvesting
>> housing  over all other forms of investment.
>
> And that is a good thing given the shortage of rental housing.

**Clearly, it's not working.

>
>> Thanks John Howard for setting the scene for insane housing price rises.
>
> Bullshit. The reason for that has always been the vast number
> of immigrants relative to the rate of new houses builing built.

**No, there hasn't.

[Ozix]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **Clearly, it's not working.

In hindsight, the $25,000 Homebuilder handout during the pandemic was
counter-productive. In WA, was no need for it, as COVID-zero kept
construction going. But the rush for renovations diverted tradies and
materials away from new houses, and increased the delays in finishing
anything.

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Peter Jason wrote

>>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights.

>>>> Expect to see a reduction in this benefit in the near future.

>>>> The benefits of this tax break has not reduced property prices nor
>>>> rent levels. Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!

>>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!

>>>> BAH!

>>> Negative gearing is a legitimate form of tax minimisation.

>> But is something only the well off can use.

> I know a few who use it, but aren't overly well off.

That's very arguable given the fact of who owns more than one property.

> It does benefit any form of investment though.

Bullshit.

> Business, for instance.

That's not negative gearing.

> And housing, of course.

>>> It is unlikely to be changed any time soon.

>> Particularly as Albo is unlikely to breaktwo very obvious promises in
>> a row now.

> Yeah, Dutton fell into that last one. Big time. Fucking idiot.

More bullshit. Its really been the only thing that he has been
able to hang on Albo and it would have been stupid not to.

>>> However, what does need to be addressed is
>>> the giant rort known as 'capital gains discount'.

>> That isnt a giant rort.

> Sure it is. It favours long term investments, over short term ones

That doesn't make it a rort, stupid.

It actually penalises the undesirable flipping of propertys and
speculation.

.
> Like housing, for instance.

>>> This appallingly badly designed structure favours those
>>> investing housing over all other forms of investment.

>> And that is a good thing given the shortage of rental housing.

> Clearly, it's not working.

Nothing will ever fix such a difficult problem.

It clearly does see more choose to be landlords than would otherwise do
that.

>>> Thanks John Howard for setting thescene for insane housing price

>>> rises.

>> Bullshit. The reason for that has always been the vast number

>> of immigrants relative to the rate of new houses being built.

> No, there hasn't.

Corse there has.

[Rod Speed]

Ozix <oz...@xizo.am> wrote

> Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> Clearly, it's not working.

> In hindsight, the $25,000 Homebuilder

It was actually $50K

> handout during the pandemic was counter-productive.

Bullshit. Without it there would have been even fewer new houses.

> In WA, was no need for it, as COVID-zero kept construction going.

Bullshit. And you lot never had covid-zero

> But the rush for renovations

No such animal.

> diverted tradies and materials away from new houses,and increased the
> delays in finishing anything.

But still produced more new houses than there would otherwise have been.

[Peter Jason]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 09:45:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"

I remember the governor of the reserve bank commenting that if people
could double up and live several to a house, then much of the problem
could be solved. Too right. There used to be granny flats, and
granny could take care of the kids while mummy went to work.
So....
Pressure off housing.
Pressure off day care.
Pressure off aged care.
Pressure off we poor struggling taxpayers!

Indeed the solution would be for interest rates to go MUCH higher so
forcing the idle poor to cohabit.

[Rod Speed]

> I remember the governor of the reserve bank commentingthat if people
> could double up and live several to a house,then much of the problem

> could be solved. Too right.

Even Albo isnt THAT stupid.

> There used to be granny flats,

There still are and its even easier
to add one now than it ever was.

> and granny could take care of thekids while mummy went to work.

Nothing like your original shit.

> So....
> Pressure off housing.
> Pressure off day care.
> Pressure off aged care.
> Pressure off we poor struggling taxpayers!

Which is why it is now much easier to add a
granny flat than it ever used to be and there
is no requirement that it must be granny either.
You are free to rent it out to anyone you choose to.

> Indeed the solution would be for interest rates to go MUCH higher

Even Albo isnt THAT stupid.

> so forcing the idle poor to cohabit.

[Borax Man]

Did the governor of the reserve bank really say something so braindead?

that would only increases prices further, as sellers and landlords will
be able to charge even more.

>

[Borax Man]

No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.

we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.

[Peter Jason]

He said only "if people lived together" there would less pressure on
housing. I have extrapolated.

And I forgot to mention the vast amounts of money thrown away by the
idle poor on international travel, a wholly unnecessary expense which
benefits only the overseas gypsies. And the airlines, I suppose.

>
>that would only increases prices further, as sellers and landlords will
>be able to charge even more.
>

No, because there would be less demand.
>>

And, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And death
duties?

[Fran]

On 9/02/2024 12:12 am, Borax Man wrote:
> On 2024-02-04, Ozix <oz...@xizo.am> wrote:

snip

>> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful owner-occupier
>> is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
>> rental longer.
>
> No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
> loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.
>
> we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
> mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
> construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.

I'm not a fan of our immigration policies given the limitations imposed
by the nature of our ancient fragile landscape but unfortunately much of
what you call "insane immigration" and "dumb population policy" is what
drives our economy, fills needed skills shortages and provides workers
for jobs native born Australians aren't prepared to do.

If you believe me, google it as there is lots of information out there
to support what I've said.

[Rod Speed]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 08:05:14 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusiona...@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:

> On 9/02/2024 12:12 am, Borax Man wrote:
>> On 2024-02-04, Ozix <oz...@xizo.am> wrote:
> snip
>>> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful
>>> owner-occupier
>>> is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
>>> rental longer.
>> No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
>> loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.
>> we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
>> mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
>> construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.

> I'm not a fan of our immigration policies given the limitationsimposed
> by the nature of our ancient fragile landscape

It isnt fragile.

> but unfortunately much of what you call "insane immigration"and "dumb
> population policy" is what drives our economy,

Bullshit.

> fills needed skills shortages

Bullshit.

> and provides workers for jobs nativeborn Australians aren't prepared to
> do.

No such animal.

> If you believe me, google it as there is lots of information out there
> to support what I've said.

Bullshit on all of your stupid claims.

[Petzl]

What you expect from the head of the Dumb 4.
You are absolutely correct.
Enter dumb one 2, Ordog the Fran brown noser.
--
Petzl
We know the inane Dumb4 are lying,
they know they are lying,
they know we know they are lying,
we know they know we know they are lying,
but they are still lying.
"Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn"

[Petzl]

All get Federal government secretly paying their rent!
Went to Edmondson Park Service Centre, no street signs, asked around
six people what street this is all "I can;t speak English"

Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
But most politicians use this scam.

Asylum seekers need to be housed in compounds till the at least have a
reasonable amount of English and answer qustions about our Lords
"Sermon on the Mount"
<https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/sermon-on-mount_bible/>
or https://t.ly/4H-f3
--
Petzl
Think of Christianity as Australia's immune system.
The Christian belief and fact is Moslems are deceived.
Like Schizophrenics, they need therapy;
Not confirmation of their delusions.
The recognized place of worship in a Christian Nation is a Christian Church.
Mosques are the recognized place of worship only in Moslem countries
Australia's only legally defined God is our Christian God whose compound redemptive name is Lord Jesus Christ
Something as simple as denying Moslems a place to pray is all it takes to make them leave voluntarily and peacefully.

[Ördög]

Petz sends urgent advisory from his alternate Universe

/snip lots of crap/

> All get Federal government secretly paying their rent!

Rubbish! Conspiracy kookery at its very best!
Petz dear, your tinfoil hat is leaking badly. :-P

> Went to Edmondson Park Service Centre, no street signs, asked around
> six people what street this is all "I can;t speak English"

So what! Who cares! Learn some foreign languages if this disturbs you
sooooo much ... hang on! My bad!
I have completely forgotten that you are absolutely learn resistant. :-P

> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.

Strangely enough, you are quite right on that issue.

> But most politicians use this scam.

I have spoken too soon. :-(

Alas, that is rubbish. Capitalists politicians do what capitalism
allows...using laws and regulations to their own advantage...just look
at Voldemort Gestapo Dutton's real estate portfolios.

>
> Asylum seekers need to be housed in compounds > till the at least have a

> reasonable amount of English ...

And that would cost less taxpayers moneys...how?

But I'd agree, all new immigrants who arrive here w/o the necessary
skills to get on their own feet immediately should be offered proper and
safe accommodation, intensive language courses and job assistance.
That is how a civilised nation should treat new arrivals.

> and answer qustions about our Lords
> "Sermon on the Mount"

Your "Lord" Sky-fairy is not *OURS*!

Australia is secular country with guaranteed freedom of religion.
X-tian fundy indoctrination is not a prerequisite for the path to
citizenship.
Fuck off Petz! Stop this fundamentalist nonsense. You are as extremist
in religion as any brave member of the Taliban is!

NOTE:
Your idiotic extremist and/or Xtian fundy hate propaganda and high
octane Goon-bag fumes induced fantasy sig (that quite often contains
uncredited, therefore clearly plagiarised material pinched from
countless alt-right sources) was flushed down the gurgler, as always,
without reading!

You can't avoid that no matter how many times you repeat such rubbish at
the end of your posts.

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

[Rod Speed]

She is the stinking arsehole.

> You are absolutely correct.

As always.

> Enter dumb one 2, Ordog the Fran brown noser.

Which proves that she is the dumb 4 arsehole

[Rod Speed]

Bullshit.

> Went to Edmondson Park Service Centre, no street signs, askedaround six

> people what street this is all "I can;t speak English"

But google maps will tell you for free.

> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.

Thats mad. The would see fewer landlords, stupid.

> But most politicians use this scam.

Bullshit and it isnt a scam.

> Asylum seekers need to be housed in compounds

Fuck that, stupidly expensive.

> still the at least have a reasonable amount of English

Which is never for most of them.

> and answer qustions about our Lords "Sermon on the Mount"

Unconstitutional given S113

[Fran]

On 9/02/2024 12:40 pm, Ördög wrote:
> Petz sends urgent advisory from his alternate Universe
>
> /snip lots of crap/

>> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
>
> Strangely enough, you are quite right on that issue.
>
>> But most politicians use this scam.
>
> I have spoken too soon. :-(

:-)))))))

>
> Alas, that is rubbish. Capitalists politicians do what capitalism
> allows...using laws and regulations to their own advantage...just look
> at Voldemort Gestapo Dutton's real estate portfolios.

Which can be seen here:
https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/03_Senators_and_Members/32_Members/Register/47P/CF/Dutton_47P.pdf?la=en&hash=E1230B4D19AD2F2E98544BCC3F3165BF18177B20

[Borax Man]

I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses, affects
the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they together
can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something similar
happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage earners.

As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who are
only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
to the bottom.

[Borax Man]

On 2024-02-09, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:12:50 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
><rotf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-02-04, Ozix <oz...@xizo.am> wrote:
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>

** snip **

>>>
>>> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful owner-occupier
>>> is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
>>> rental longer.
>>
>>No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
>>loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.
>>
>>we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
>>mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
>>construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.
>>
> All get Federal government secretly paying their rent!
> Went to Edmondson Park Service Centre, no street signs, asked around
> six people what street this is all "I can;t speak English"
>
> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
> But most politicians use this scam.
>
> Asylum seekers need to be housed in compounds till the at least have a
> reasonable amount of English and answer qustions about our Lords
> "Sermon on the Mount"
><https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/sermon-on-mount_bible/>
> or https://t.ly/4H-f3

Yes, I've wondered how those unskilled immigrants were able
to afford houses that I, a full time white collar professional
could not afford. Its quite dispiriting to go to all this
effort to contribute to society, only to have to then be
asked to supports others who aren't working to get ahead of
you.

[Borax Man]

I've heard this argument over and over again, but I don't buy it.

I'm speaking from experience, having had to hire people myself.

All too often, I've worked alongside with visa workers who are
doing jobs I *KNOW* there are local candidates.
The skills shortage is overblown to a large degree. It is
more employers being lazy, cheap, or just not caring. In
my 20+ year career in a skilled profession, "we can't find a
skilled person" was almost always down to the employer failing
to either recruit correctly, HR not understanding requirements,
stupid requirements which exclude otherwise good candidates,
poor pay or conditions. The last job I tried to fill, the
position was only advertised on linkedin, nowhere else.
NOWHERE ELSE. A multinational company, and they wouldn't
spring a few hundred bucks to advertise on seek. Then HR
cut out most of the candidates, despite not really knowing
what the position involves.

All we've got from unfettered immigration was increased
disparity between the haves and have nots, overcrowding,
traffic, stagnant wages, unaffordable housing and a reversal
of the trend where one generation could be better off
than the one that preceded it.

If immigration drove our economy to where it is today,
one must be incredibly self-unaware to crow about these
results.

[Borax Man]

On 2024-02-03, Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> On 4/02/2024 9:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights. Expect to see a reduction in

>> this benefit in the near future.
>>

>> The benefits of this tax break has not reduced property prices nor

>> rent levels. Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!

>>
>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!
>>

>> BAH!
>>
>
> **Negative gearing is a legitimate form of tax minimisation. It is
> unlikely to be changed any time soon. However, what does need to be
> addressed is the giant rort known as 'capital gains discount'. This
> appallingly badly designed structure favours those investing housing
> over all other forms of investment. Thanks John Howard for setting the

> scene for insane housing price rises.
>

Negative Gearing is legal, but not legitimate. It is a burden on the
tax payers to correct what is a bad investment on the investors part.
The fact you get ALL your taxable income reduced makes it a rort.
Buying an investment property is NOT a business. As an investor, you
should be calculating the ROI, and determining the value of the asset
by the income it brings in. NG "allows" property investors to overpay
for the property. I'm not subsidising landlords.


Negative Gearing should go, as should the CGT. Whinging investors can
choose to invest elsewhere. Australia has been run as a sheltered
workshop for property investors too long. We've created a culture
where we coddle and patronise property investors to our detriment.

[ken]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:24:11 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusiona...@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:

> On 9/02/2024 12:40 pm, Ördög wrote:
>> Petz sends urgent advisory from his alternate Universe
>> /snip lots of crap/
>
>
>>> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
>> Strangely enough, you are quite right on that issue.
>>
>>> But most politicians use this scam.
>> I have spoken too soon. :-(

> :-)))))))

Why have you got so many chins, cowface ?

[Rod Speed]

You are wrong in our case.

> If supply isn't plentiful, price determined
> by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the market
> can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
> per dwelling

Doesnt happen much here.

> effectively increases what the household can bear
> in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and landlords
> to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they together
> can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something similar
> happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage earners.

> As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those who are
> only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as those
> who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
> to the bottom.

Fantasy

[Rod Speed]

They stack them in 10 deep.

> Its quite dispiriting to go to all this
> effort to contribute to society, only to have to then be
> asked to supports others who aren't working

True.

> to get ahead of you.

Fantasy

[Rod Speed]

It isnt unfettered and hasnt ever been.

> was increased
> disparity between the haves and have nots,

Bullshit.

> overcrowding, traffic, stagnant wages,

Bullshit.

> unaffordable housing

Bullshit.

> and a reversal
> of the trend where one generation could be better off
> than the one that preceded it.

More bullshit.

> If immigration drove our economy to where it is today,

Of course it did.

[Rod Speed]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:18:49 +1100, Borax Man <rotf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2024-02-03, Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> On 4/02/2024 9:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> Sleazy Albanese has this in his sights. Expect to see a reduction in
>>> this benefit in the near future.
>>>
>>> The benefits of this tax break has not reduced property prices nor
>>> rent levels. Proponents of this scam have their snouts in the trough!
>>>
>>> Like that Yankee fool Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates low of
>>> umpteen years, hoping this would stimulate employment and investment,
>>> instead gave speculators the green light to rape and loot!!!
>>>
>>> BAH!
>>>
>>
>> **Negative gearing is a legitimate form of tax minimisation. It is
>> unlikely to be changed any time soon. However, what does need to be
>> addressed is the giant rort known as 'capital gains discount'. This
>> appallingly badly designed structure favours those investing housing
>> over all other forms of investment. Thanks John Howard for setting the
>> scene for insane housing price rises.

> Negative Gearing is legal, but not legitimate.

Bullshit on that last.

> It is a burden on the
> tax payers to correct what is a bad investment on the investors part.

More bullshit.

> The fact you get ALL your taxable income reduced makes it a rort.

More bullshit.

> Buying an investment property is NOT a business.

More bullshit.

> As an investor, you
> should be calculating the ROI, and determining the value of the asset
> by the income it brings in.

And that's what most do.

> NG "allows" property investors to overpay for the property.

More bullshit.

> I'm not subsidising landlords.

Yes you are and you get to like that or lump it.

> Negative Gearing should go,

Not gunna happen.

> as should the CGT.

Why should those who get their income that way not pay tax on that ?

> Whinging investors can choose to invest elsewhere.

You get no say on that, or anything else either.

> Australia has been run as a sheltered
> workshop for property investors too long.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> We've created a culture where we coddle andpatronise property investors
> to our detriment.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

[Ördög]

Trolling ken's latest Usenet defecation

> Why have you got so many chins, cowface ?

* R E P L O N K *

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

[Peter Jason]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man

I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have to be
all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in half.

Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in the
old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're throwing
money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that Keynesian
drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money would
stimulate investment in manufacturing.

The Chinese are still laughing!

In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth bank
which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious competitor
to the other round-table sharks.

But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry too
early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less one
spends) and save, save, save.

[Rod Speed]

As always

> but why does negative gearing have to be all or nothing? A simple
> reform would be to cut the benefit in half.

But would inevitably make the lack of housing worse, stupid.

And even Albo isnt actually stupid enough to be seen
to have lied about two separate things which are so
important to so many in the election campaign.

> Of course buying a house has always been difficult,

Bullshit, MUCH easier previously.

> although in the old days the banks required 30% deposit

Bullshit.

> whereas now they're throwing money at the lender.

Bullshit.

> This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy Reaganunleashed the banks
> to become speculators.

More bullshit, no yanks ever had any say on how our banks operate.

> And that Keynesian drone Greenspan who thought flooding Americawith
> borrowed money would stimulate investment in manufacturing.

He never thought anything of the sort. Manufacturing
had been only a minor part of the yank economy for
a long time by then.

> The Chinese are still laughing!

Nothing to do with Greenspan or banks.

> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealthbank

> which more sensibly might have been retained as a seriouscompetitor to
> the other round-table sharks.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don'tmarry too
> early, hold down two or more jobs (the moreone works, the less one

> spends) and save, save, save.

Bullshit they do when the interest rate paid doesnt
even come close ot the inflation rate, stupid.

Investing makes a hell of a lot more sense than saving, stupid.

[Borax Man]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100

Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
> <rotf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
> >><rotf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

*sip*

> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax? And death

Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowing businesses to
establish themselves, in particular during the early stages where they
are not yet at a profit. My argument is that the application of this
concession to housing doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business. The second
problem is the claim that all your income falls within the scope. It
could make sense to say that income from the property itself, can be
under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?

I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable tax
concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the expenses
from the intial purchase. At some point this situation will change.
The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly, especially when
the investor is buying an already built house. We treat these two
scenarios as synonymous when they aren't. I see Negative Gearing as a
"freebie" to investors, to buy votes, for self interest (politicians
often have investment properties) and to prop up the market. I could
be swayed to support Negative Gearing for housing, when the investor
is also the builder.

Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property* to rent
out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset at a known
price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be. If they
are buying the asset, which has already been created, for passive
income, and they are offering a purchase price which does not allow a
profitable ROI, then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota. This it where
it becomes grossly unfair. That investor that bought the house on my
street, only to rent it out, not only outbid others who wanted to buy
it, but can claim a tax concession on any income, because they CHOSE
to pay a high price.

This ultimately inflates property prices, because if Negative Gearing
was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger loss and would be
compelled not to value the property so highly. The whole point of
Capitalism is that we discover the true price of an object. You can
calculate the true value of an investment property based on ROI from
rental, and that value must be less than the income obtained from
renting it out in order for it to be profitable. If the house must be
purchased at $560K or less in order to be profitable when you rent it
out, then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial decisions.


--

[Rod Speed]

> themselves, in particularduring the early stages where they are not yet
> at a profit.

You are wrong about that. If there is no
profit, there is no income to negative gear.

You are confusing negative gearing and a business
being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.

> My argument is that the application of this concessionto housing

> doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
> your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.

Being a landlord is a business, stupid.

> The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within the
> scope.

There is no such claim.

> It could make sense to say that income from the property itself, canbe
> under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?

There is no tax deduction against the income from the property itself.

What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
from the property against your other taxable income.

> I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable tax
> concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
> removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the expenses
> from the intial purchase.

That's not negative gearing.

> At some point this situation will change.

Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
of their hobby.

> The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,

Of course it does with a holiday house that you sometimes
rent out when you arent using it yourself.

> especially when the investor is buying an already built house. We treat
> these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.

Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.

> I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,

You can make the same stupid claim about not having
to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.

> for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)

Because they are some of the better pain in society.

> and to prop up the market.

The market doesnt need propping up.

> I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the

> investor is also the builder.

No one cares what you could be swayed to support.

Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
property available for those who can not or not yet afford
to buy the property they are living in.

> Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property* torent

> out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known

> price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.

Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.

> If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for

> passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does not
> allow a profitable ROI,

Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.

> then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
> the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.

Pity about the need for more rental housing.

> This it where it becomes grossly unfair.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it out,

> not only outbid others who wanted to buy

> it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they CHOSE to
> pay a high price.

And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.

> This ultimately inflates property prices, because if NegativeGearing

> was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger lossand would be

> compelled not to value the property so highly.

And the house would not be available to someone who needs to rent.

> The whole point of Capitalism is that we discover the true price of an
> object.

BULLSHIT. There never is any such animal as a true price.

> You can calculate the true value of an investment property

There is no such animal.

> based on ROI from rental, and that valuemust be less than the income

> obtained from
> renting it out in order for it to be profitable.

Not necessarily, particularly when the property
is purchased because you have decided the
capital gain will be what matters as it often is.

> If the house must be purchased at $560K or lessin order to be

> profitable when you rent it out,

That is fanciful in the current market.

> then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
> Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial decisions.

It isnt necessarily a bad financial decision, stupid.

[Petzl]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:56:05 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man

Thre have been hushed up reports where Moslems get multiple wives and
CES gives them each a housing Commision house which they in turn rent
out, isn't that nice of him

[Petzl]

The real or first trick is to register as a business and get ,.a Tax
Office Number now called a TFN (it's free)
<https://business.gov.au/registrations/register-for-taxes/tax-registration-for-your-business>
or https://t.ly/7Me4t
Do your tax online and do not be in a hurry to submit until yo hit the
one that gives the most refund you will be pleased maybe shocked.
Your can claim a awful lot of business expenses off your income.
--
Petzl
ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" One Nation.
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
摘verything that defines us is now an enemy,
so they attack national identity, they attack religious identity,
they attack gender identity, they attack family identity.
I can稚 define myself as Italian, Christian, woman, mother, no.
I must be citizen x, gender x, parent 1, parent 2.
I must be a number, because when I am only a number,
when I no longer have an identity or roots,
then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators.
: - Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni

[Borax Man]

If they are working a job, have a share portfolio that pays dividends,
they are making an income. That attracts a tax. NG applies to this.

> > My argument is that the application of this concessionto housing
> > doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
> > your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.
>
> Being a landlord is a business, stupid.
>

Thats a stretch, really is a stretch. I'll ask the next landlord I
see for their ABN number then. Someone who has bought a second house
and lends it is a businessman now! Spare me...

> > The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within the
> > scope.
>
> There is no such claim.
>

> > It could make sense to say that income from the property itself, canbe
> > under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?
>
> There is no tax deduction against the income from the property itself.
>
> What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
> from the property against your other taxable income.
>

Thats how NG works. If you make a loss, that loss is deducted from
your taxable income. If you lose $20K, then your taxable income is
reduced by 20K, regardless of whether that taxable income comes from
your property or not.

So you can effectively lower the income tax you pay from your 9-5 job
through your "business" of renting out your second home.

This is not the same as carrying over losses, as may happen if you
sell shares at a loss, which would in later years be deducted from
capital gains.

> > I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable tax
> > concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
> > removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the expenses
> > from the intial purchase.
>
> That's not negative gearing.
>
> > At some point this situation will change.
>
> Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
> a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
> that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
> of their hobby.
>
> > The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,
>
> Of course it does with a holiday house that you sometimes
> rent out when you arent using it yourself.
>

This is a different scenario to buying up residential property in the
suburbs, outbidding those who want to buy to reside. People keep
bringing up exceptions to justify a different norm.

> > especially when the investor is buying an already built house. We treat
> > these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.
>
> Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.
>
> > I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,
>
> You can make the same stupid claim about not having
> to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.
>
> > for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)
>
> Because they are some of the better pain in society.
>
> > and to prop up the market.
>
> The market doesnt need propping up.
>

Yet it is propped up. We KNOW its propped up because when changes to
NG is proposed, or change to migration, people openly state that it
will impact (lower) prices.

> > I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the
> > investor is also the builder.
>
> No one cares what you could be swayed to support.
>
> Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
> property available for those who can not or not yet afford
> to buy the property they are living in.
>
> > Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property* torent
> > out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
> > price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.
>
> Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.
>

Again, the idea that its like buying a business is just preposterous, a cultural creation to coddle landlords. I may as well argue that having shares means I'm a businessman, or that I run a business selling my own labour to my employer. Why not.

Ridiculous.

> > If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for
> > passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does not
> > allow a profitable ROI,
>
> Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.
>

> > then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
> > the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.
>
> Pity about the need for more rental housing.
>
> > This it where it becomes grossly unfair.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>
> > That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it out,
> > not only outbid others who wanted to buy
> > it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they CHOSE to
> > pay a high price.
>
> And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.
>

Yes, provide rental housng to the person who would have otherwise been
able to buy it. Landlord outbids the first home buyer, then rents it
to the first home buyer claiming a NG tax concession because he
overpaid.

We wouldn't need as many rental properties if housing wasn't hoarded by investors.

> > This ultimately inflates property prices, because if NegativeGearing
> > was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger lossand would be
> > compelled not to value the property so highly.
>
> And the house would not be available to someone who needs to rent.
>
> > The whole point of Capitalism is that we discover the true price of an
> > object.
>
> BULLSHIT. There never is any such animal as a true price.
>

Then we may as well get the state to set the price, their price as good as any other right?

> > You can calculate the true value of an investment property
>
> There is no such animal.
>
> > based on ROI from rental, and that valuemust be less than the income
> > obtained from
> > renting it out in order for it to be profitable.
>
> Not necessarily, particularly when the property
> is purchased because you have decided the
> capital gain will be what matters as it often is.
>
> > If the house must be purchased at $560K or lessin order to be
> > profitable when you rent it out,
>
> That is fanciful in the current market.
>
> > then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
> > Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial decisions.
>
> It isnt necessarily a bad financial decision, stupid.

Then in that case, remove the tax concessions, and let these people
make smart decisions. If they overborrow, that is on them. If they
decide at Auction to pay $X and make a loss, that is on them. No one
forces anyone to invest money and make a loss, especially property
investors. No one forces me to borrow money to buy shares where the
yield won't cover repayments + interest.

As a tax payer I vote against supporting this.

[Fran]

On 9/02/2024 7:09 pm, Borax Man wrote:
> On 2024-02-08, Fran <gettingmoredelusiona...@nutcasewannabeFran.com> wrote:
>> On 9/02/2024 12:12 am, Borax Man wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-04, Ozix <oz...@xizo.am> wrote:
>> snip
>>>> Problem is purely the shortage of any housing. If hopeful owner-occupier
>>>> is waiting for insolvent builder to finish house, they are staying in
>>>> rental longer.
>>>
>>> No, the problem is insane immigration, poor monetary policy,
>>> loose lending standards and incentices which promote asset hoarding.
>>>
>>> we CANNOT build our way out of this. "Build more houses" has been the
>>> mantra for ages and it hasn't worked. There has actually be a lot of
>>> construction, but it can't keep up with dumb population policy.
>>
>> I'm not a fan of our immigration policies given the limitations imposed
>> by the nature of our ancient fragile landscape but unfortunately much of
>> what you call "insane immigration" and "dumb population policy" is what
>> drives our economy, fills needed skills shortages and provides workers
>> for jobs native born Australians aren't prepared to do.
>>
>> If you believe me, google it as there is lots of information out there
>> to support what I've said.
> I've heard this argument over and over again, but I don't buy it.

It's a well researched fact.

> I'm speaking from experience, having had to hire people myself.
>
> All too often, I've worked alongside with visa workers who are
> doing jobs I *KNOW* there are local candidates.
> The skills shortage is overblown to a large degree. It is
> more employers being lazy, cheap, or just not caring. In
> my 20+ year career in a skilled profession, "we can't find a
> skilled person" was almost always down to the employer failing
> to either recruit correctly, HR not understanding requirements,
> stupid requirements which exclude otherwise good candidates,
> poor pay or conditions. The last job I tried to fill, the
> position was only advertised on linkedin, nowhere else.
> NOWHERE ELSE. A multinational company, and they wouldn't
> spring a few hundred bucks to advertise on seek. Then HR
> cut out most of the candidates, despite not really knowing
> what the position involves.

That's simply incompetence on the part of that company. Having been in
charge of executive employment at one stage of my career for an
organisation of 17,000 people my problem was my unit weeding out
applicants rather than finding them.

>
> All we've got from unfettered immigration was increased
> disparity between the haves and have nots, overcrowding,
> traffic, stagnant wages, unaffordable housing and a reversal
> of the trend where one generation could be better off
> than the one that preceded it.

And an economy that is known to benefit for that constant influx of
migrants regardless of your (or my) personal opinion about that constant
flow.

> If immigration drove our economy to where it is today,
> one must be incredibly self-unaware to crow about these
> results.

It's not about 'one' doing any crowing. It's about governments and
institutions being able to prove that economically, migrants provide an
economic benefit to the country.

[Fran]

On 9/02/2024 7:30 pm, ken wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:24:11 +1100, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusiona...@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/02/2024 12:40 pm, Ördög wrote:
>>> Petz sends urgent advisory from his alternate Universe
>>>  /snip lots of crap/
>>
>>
>>>> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
>>>  Strangely enough, you are quite right on that issue.
>>>
>>>> But most politicians use this scam.
>>>  I have spoken too soon. :-(
>
>> :-)))))))
>
> Why have you got so many chins, cowface ?

Now then little ken, do try to demonstrate some competence in the insult
department. That above effort from you just makes me think of you as an
intellectually inept, pimply faced 14 year old.

[Rod Speed]

>> > Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowing
>> > businesses to establish themselves, in particular

>> > during the early stages where they are not yet at a profit.

>> You are wrong about that. If there is no
>> profit, there is no income to negative gear.

>> You are confusing negative gearing and a business
>> being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.

> If they are working a job,

Most new businesses don't.

> have a share portfolio that pays dividends,

Most new businesses don't.

> they are making an income. That attracts a tax.NG applies to this.

Most new businesses don't.

>> > My argument is that the application of this concession
>> > to housing doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
>> > your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.

>> Being a landlord is a business, stupid.

> Thats a stretch, really is a stretch.

Nope.

> I'll ask the next landlord I see for their ABN number then.

You don't need an ABN to be a business.

> Someone who has bought a second house
> and lends it is a businessman now!

Always has been, and plenty have more than one too.

> Spare me...

No thanks, bullet in the back of the neck for someone as ignorant as you.

>> > The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within the
>> > scope.
>>
>> There is no such claim.
>>
>
>> > It could make sense to say that income from the property itself,
>> canbe
>> > under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?
>>
>> There is no tax deduction against the income from the property itself.

>> What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
>> from the property against your other taxable income.

> Thats how NG works.

What I said.

> If you make a loss, that loss is deducted from

> your taxable income. If you lose $20K, thenyour taxable income is
> reduced by 20K,

What I said.

> regardless of whether that taxable incomecomes from your property or
> not.

What I said.

> So you can effectively lower the income tax you pay from your9-5 job

> through your "business" of renting out your second home.

It isnt a second home if you rent it out all the time, its a business.

> This is not the same as carrying over losses,as may happen if you sell
> shares at a loss,

You can't carry over that loss, you pig ignorant clown.

> which would in later years bededucted from capital gains.

Not if it isnt realised, you pig ignorant clown.

>> > I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable tax
>> > concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
>> > removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the expenses
>> > from the intial purchase.
>>
>> That's not negative gearing.
>>
>> > At some point this situation will change.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
>> a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
>> that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
>> of their hobby.
>>
>> > The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,
>>

>> Of course it does with a holiday house that yousometimes rent out when

>> you arent using it yourself.

> This is a different scenario to buying up residential propertyin the

> suburbs, outbidding those who want to buy to reside.

Duh.

> People keep bringing up exceptions

That isnt an exception.

> to justify a different norm.

There is no 'norm'

>> > especially when the investor is buying an already built house. We >
>> treat these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.
>>
>> Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.
>>
>> > I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,
>>
>> You can make the same stupid claim about not having
>> to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.
>>
>> > for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)
>>
>> Because they are some of the better pain in society.
>>
>> > and to prop up the market.
>>
>> The market doesnt need propping up.

> Yet it is propped up.

Bullshit.

> We KNOW its propped up because when changesto NG is proposed, or change
> to migration, peopleopenly state that it will impact (lower) prices.

Bullshit.

>> > I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the
>> > investor is also the builder.
>>
>> No one cares what you could be swayed to support.
>>
>> Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
>> property available for those who can not or not yet afford
>> to buy the property they are living in.
>>
>> > Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property* torent
>> > out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
>> > price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.
>>
>> Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.

> Again, the idea that its like buying a business is just preposterous,

Being a landlord is a business.

> a cultural creation to coddle landlords.

Not when the rental property is making a profit
and only a completely incompetant landlord isnt
doing that with the rental market so tight.

> I may as well argue that having shares means I'm a businessman,

Are you seriously trying to claim that no one
does nothing but own property and renit it out ?

Even you can't actually be THAT pig ignorant.

> or that I run a business sellingmy own labour to my employer.

Plenty of contractors do just that, you pig ignorant fool.

And they need to have an ABN to do that.

> Why not.

Why not indeed.

> Ridiculous.

Your sig is sposed to be last with
a line with just -- on it in front of it.

>> > If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for
>> > passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does not
>> > allow a profitable ROI,
>>
>> Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.
>>
>
>> > then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
>> > the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.
>>
>> Pity about the need for more rental housing.
>>
>> > This it where it becomes grossly unfair.
>>
>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>
>> > That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it out,
>> > not only outbid others who wanted to buy
>> > it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they CHOSE
>> > to pay a high price.

>> And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.

> Yes, provide rental housng to the person whowould have otherwise been
> able to buy it.

Few renters are, fool.

> Landlord outbids the first home buyer, thenrents it to the first home
> buyer claiming aNG tax concession because he overpaid.

They actually charge the rent that provides a decent
return in the current very tight rental market, fool

> We wouldn't need as many rental propertiesif housing wasn't hoarded by
> investors.

They aren't hoarded, they are rented out in the very tight rental market,
fool.

>> > This ultimately inflates property prices, because if NegativeGearing
>> > was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger lossand would be
>> > compelled not to value the property so highly.
>>
>> And the house would not be available to someone who needs to rent.
>>
>> > The whole point of Capitalism is that we discover the true price of
>> an
>> > object.
>>
>> BULLSHIT. There never is any such animal as a true price.

> Then we may as well get the state to set theprice, their price as good
> as any other right?

Wrong, as always.

>> > You can calculate the true value of an investment property
>>
>> There is no such animal.
>>
>> > based on ROI from rental, and that valuemust be less than the income
>> > obtained from
>> > renting it out in order for it to be profitable.
>>
>> Not necessarily, particularly when the property
>> is purchased because you have decided the
>> capital gain will be what matters as it often is.
>>
>> > If the house must be purchased at $560K or lessin order to be
>> > profitable when you rent it out,
>>
>> That is fanciful in the current market.
>>
>> > then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
>> > Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial decisions.
>>
>> It isnt necessarily a bad financial decision, stupid.

> Then in that case, remove the tax concessions,

And see the very tight rental market get even tighter, fool.

> and let these people make smart decisions.

That's what they do.

> If they overborrow,

They don't in a very tight rental market. They
get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.

> that is on them. If they decide atAuction to pay $X and make a loss,

They don't in a very tight rental market. They
get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.

> that is on them. No one forces anyoneto invest money and make a loss,

They don't in a very tight rental market. They
get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.

> especially property investors.

They don't in a very tight rental market. They
get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.

> No one forces me to borrow money to buy shareswhere the yield won't
> cover repayments + interest.

You don't get to negatively gear in that situation, fool.

> As a tax payer I vote against supporting this.

And your vote is completelely irrelevant, just like you are.

[ken]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 18:59:17 +1100, Fran

<gettingmoredelusiona...@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:

> On 9/02/2024 7:30 pm, ken wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:24:11 +1100, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusiona...@nutcasewannabefran.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/02/2024 12:40 pm, Ördög wrote:
>>>> Petz sends urgent advisory from his alternate Universe
>>>> /snip lots of crap/
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Capital gains needs to only allowable on one extra property.
>>>> Strangely enough, you are quite right on that issue.
>>>>
>>>>> But most politicians use this scam.
>>>> I have spoken too soon. :-(
>>
>>> :-)))))))
>> Why have you got so many chins, cowface ?
>
> Now then little ken, do try to demonstrate some competence in the insult
> department.

Clearly something you can't manage, cow's arse.

> That above effort from you just makes me think

Obvious lie.

of you as an
> intellectually inept, pimply faced 14 year old.

Ditto.

[Ördög]

Petz is floating in on GoonCon3+ clouds

/snip bucket loads of crap/

> Thre have been hushed up reports where Moslems get multiple wives and
> CES gives them each a housing Commision house which they in turn rent
> out, isn't that nice of him
>

You do realise Petz dear, that you could prevent such scary-outrage
visions and hallucinations by lowering somewhat your daily alcohol
intake. :-P :-P :-P

Furthermore, constantly immersing yourself in
eXed-Twitter/Facebook/Murdoch-media propagated racist
Xenophobia/Islamophobia scare- and hatemongering propaganda will
definitely rot your few still remaining functional brain cells. :-P
:-P :-P

[Fran]

On 11/02/2024 9:53 am, Ördög wrote:
> Petz is floating in on GoonCon3+ clouds
>
> /snip bucket loads of crap/
>
>> Thre have been hushed up reports where Moslems get multiple wives and
>> CES gives them each a housing Commision house which they in turn rent
>> out, isn't that nice of him
>>
> You do realise Petz dear, that you could prevent such scary-outrage
> visions and hallucinations by lowering somewhat your daily alcohol
> intake. :-P    :-P    :-P

I wonder what "CES" is? I can't think of any organisation with that
acronym which is involved in allocating housing.....

[Borax Man]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 19:49:25 +1100

Well, if all this was good for the country, we wouldn't have a long
standing housing crisis, would we?

The fool here is you, defending something that OBVIOUSLY is not
working.

[Rod Speed]

> Well, if all this was good for the country, we wouldn'thave a long

> standing housing crisis, would we?

We don't have a long standing housing crisis. All we
have is a tight rental market due to the fact that we
have been stupid enough to allow hordes of migrants
into the country, far fewer than we build new houses.

> The fool here is you, defending somethingthat OBVIOUSLY is not working.

Negative gearing was never intended to eliminate
that problem and has been in place since LONG
before we ever had that problem, fool.

[Daniel65]

Fran wrote on 11/2/24 12:45 pm:

> On 11/02/2024 9:53 am, Ördög wrote:
>> Petz is floating in on GoonCon3+ clouds
>>
>> /snip bucket loads of crap/
>>
>>> Thre have been hushed up reports where Moslems get multiple wives and
>>> CES gives them each a housing Commision house which they in turn rent
>>> out, isn't that nice of him
>>>
>> You do realise Petz dear, that you could prevent such scary-outrage
>> visions and hallucinations by lowering somewhat your daily alcohol
>> intake. :-P    :-P    :-P
>
> I wonder what "CES" is?  I can't think of any organisation with that
> acronym which is involved in allocating housing.....

I can remember having to report to the CES (Commonwealth *Employment*
Service) back in, was it, late 90's/early 00's ..... but I don't recall
them EVER offering me Housing!!
--
Daniel

[Ördög]

Daniel65
> Fran
>> Ördög

>>> Petz is floating in on GoonCon3+ clouds
>>>

>>>> Thre have been hushed up reports where Moslems get multiple wives and
>>>> CES gives them each a housing Commision house which they in turn rent
>>>> out, isn't that nice of him
>>>>
>>> You do realise Petz dear, that you could prevent such scary-outrage
>>> visions and hallucinations by lowering somewhat your daily alcohol
>>> intake. :-P    :-P    :-P
>>
>> I wonder what "CES" is?  I can't think of any organisation with that
>> acronym which is involved in allocating housing.....
>
> I can remember having to report to the CES (Commonwealth *Employment*
> Service) back in, was it, late 90's/early 00's ..... but I don't recall
> them EVER offering me Housing!!

But Daniel!
You and Fran both live on planet Earth in this reality, while things
work differently in the alternate Universe Petz inhabits after his daily
Goon Bags binge.
Apparently there, employment services mainly deal with housing issues,
while the department of housing manages all employment a dole related
matters ... makes sense, eh? ... NOT! ;-)

Anyhow, wasn't it lying rodent gnome Howard who has CES outsource the
bulk of the employment services to his business mates ... with the
wonderful effect that even fewer people found meaningful jobs, while the
taxpayers were made to ensure that these private agencies were paid
quite handsomely for their social disservice. ;-)

[Peter Jason]

end where one generation could be better off
>> than the one that preceded it.
>
>And an economy that is known to benefit for that constant influx of
>migrants regardless of your (or my) personal opinion about that constant
>flow.
>
>> If immigration drove our economy to where it is today,
>> one must be incredibly self-unaware to crow about these
>> results.
>
>
>It's not about 'one' doing any crowing. It's about governments and
>institutions being able to prove that economically, migrants provide an
>economic benefit to the country.

Yet at what rate? The disastrous European and English experience
raises a question...what if the immigration occurred at half the rate
it did?

[Peter Jason]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:31:09 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Well, I know nothing about economics (of the kicked-upstairs Keynesian
Ivy League American variety), so I respond....if negative gearing is
so good why not double the benefit?
This would have everyone seizing hammers and nails and rushing out to
build umpteen houses.

Gee Rodney, have you ever thought of joining a contemplative order?

[Rod Speed]

That's always been obvious.

< (of the kicked-upstairs Keynesian
> Ivy League American variety), so Irespond....if negative gearing is so
> good

No one ever said that. What we are saying is that if it
was removed now, with the rental market much tighter
than it has been for more than half a century, that would
make the already very tight rental market even worse and
even you should be able to work out that isnt desirable.

> why not double the benefit?

Because fuck all would be losing money on
their rental property currently, at most those
who are choosing to rent out their holiday
house for the part of the year they don't
choose to use it themselves and so doubling
the benefit wouldnt do anything useful for
the ECONOMY or the rental market either,

> This would have everyone seizing hammers andnails and rushing out to
> build umpteen houses.

Nope, because in the current very tight rental
market, they would not be able to claim the loss
they would make on the property using negative
gearing, because there would be no loss, stupid.

[Petzl]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 12:45:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusiona...@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:

>On 11/02/2024 9:53 am, Ördög wrote:
>> Petz is floating in on GoonCon3+ clouds
>>
>> /snip bucket loads of crap/
>>
>>> Thre have been hushed up reports where Moslems get multiple wives and
>>> CES gives them each a housing Commision house which they in turn rent
>>> out, isn't that nice of him
>>>
>> You do realise Petz dear, that you could prevent such scary-outrage
>> visions and hallucinations by lowering somewhat your daily alcohol
>> intake. :-P    :-P    :-P
>
>I wonder what "CES" is? I can't think of any organisation with that
>acronym which is involved in allocating housing.....
>

Well I went to Services Australia, which now ALL operate from
CES/Centrelink buildings.

>
>> Furthermore, constantly immersing yourself in
>> eXed-Twitter/Facebook/Murdoch-media propagated racist
>> Xenophobia/Islamophobia scare- and hatemongering propaganda will
>> definitely rot your few still remaining functional brain cells.  :-P
>> :-P    :-P
>>

--
Petzl
We know the inane Dumb4 are lying,
they know they are lying,
they know we know they are lying,
we know they know we know they are lying,
but they are still lying.
"Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn"

[Petzl]

Well I went to Services Australia, which now ALL operate from
CES/Centrelink buildings.
>

--
Petzl
If in doubt kick them out!
Politician's are nothing more than a con game in insincerity!

Charlatanism is a necessary price of political freedom and if
a self-proclaimed politician, persuades others to believe in
a party which propounds, lack of sincerity or integrity on
the parties part, but is not incompatible with the parties
character or their beliefs, practices and observances and
being accepted by their voters, why not?

ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens"

[Fran]

Yep. They never did do housing and, additionally, it was a Federal
organisation so would have nothing to do with allocating housing anyway
as that is a state responsibility.

[Fran]

I can't remeber which lyign roent of a Federal politician it was who did
the outsorucing but Rudd's wife became a very rich woman as a result of
that outsourcing and people who just wanted to get a job got right
royally screwed.
>

[Daniel65]

Fran wrote on 12/2/24 4:14 pm:

Stop it, Fran, stop using LOGIC in your discussions with Petzl!! ;-P
--
Daniel

[Borax Man]

Considering that we are now seeing a generation, or two, which will
have worse living conditions and economic ability than the generation
that preceded it, a reversal of a long trend of progress, this
indicates failure.

[Rod Speed]

Borax Man <rotf...@hotmail.com> wrote

That remains to be seen. Three mates of mine have
just built fucking great 4 bedroom houses on a bare
block of land with substantially better detail, particularly
with full aircon, than my mates did in the very early 70s
when I triggered a rash of house building by my mates in
the very early 70s, I just don't buy that. And this time
NONE of the wives work and the males all do casual
work whereas my mates in the 70s were all
professionals mostly with working wives.

> a reversal of a long trend of progress, this indicates failure.

Nope, just changed circumstances and nothing to do
with negative gearing. In fact the only landlords that need
to use negative gearing currently are a few who are renting
out their holiday house when they aren't using it.

[Peter Jason]

We're doomed. The more rapid the change, the less chance of effective
"claw-back" possibility in politics and elsewhere. And overall in the
1970s there were bigger tariffs as a cushion for the economy. Listen
bourgeois-boy, things have changed.

[Fran]

Sorry ;-).

[Fran]

Oh FFS! Not only is that younger generation going to have worse living
conditions, be less economically well off but they are also dying
earlier and have poor health outcomes than my generation. NONE of that
is due to migration!

[Rod Speed]

Nope.

> The more rapid the change, the less chance of effective
> "claw-back" possibility in politics and elsewhere.

No need for any claw back.

> And overall in the 1970s there were biggertariffs as a cushion for the
> economy.

Have fun explaining the recession we had to have.

> Listen bourgeois-boy, things have changed.

Things always change and we do fine regardless, wog boy.

[chop]

Wrong with housing, fuckwit.

[Ördög]

Fran
> Ördög
>> Daniel65
>>> Fran
>>>> Ördög
>>>>> Petz

The outsourcing of this essential government service has clearly started
under lying rodent Howard. Just like the dismantling of many other
similar public services as well as massive scale privatisation of very
lucrative public assets under the control of the Federal Government.

Specially the outsourcing that very essential employment service
portfolio to the private sector was a huge blow back for the jobless.
(Similar to age and childcare).
I recall that when my contract with CSIRO concluded in year 2000 I
actually tried to seek job finding assistance from a private employment
agency for scientific professionals which has turned out to be a
complete waste of time and energy. These agencies work for government
subsidies and exclusively serve the interest of private employer groups
and not those who seek employment. That is what I would call a fully
legal government sanction scam.

:-(

[Ördög]

Trolling creep chop gets the well deserved chop.

> fuckwit.

Stop talking to your bathroom mirror nutjob.

:-P :-P :-P

* P. L. O. N. K. *

[Petzl]

OK, just same building once run/owned by State Government.
Not now.
Still there economic refugees getting housing paid for them at tax
payers expense. The new suburbs are full of "I can't speak english"
sopposedly bought in under skills shortages!

The Government has designed the 2023–24 permanent Migration Program to
address persistent and emerging skills shortages and to attract people
with specialist skillsets that are difficult to find or develop in
Australia.


But you knew that "Daniel65"
--
Petzl
Stalin once ripped all the feathers off a live chicken
s a lesson to his followers.
He then set the chicken on the floor a short distance away.
The chicken was bloodied and suffering immensely, yet,
when Stalin began to toss some bits of wheat toward the
chicken it followed him around.
He said to his followers This is how easy it is to govern
stupid people, (like Ordog)

[Daniel65]

Ördög wrote on 13/2/24 9:14 am:

And, Ordog, you forgot "and money" as in "a complete waste of time and
energy *and money* "!! ;-P
--
Daniel

[Daniel65]

Petzl wrote on 13/2/24 9:48 am:

No, Petzl, I don't *KNOW* that!! I might SUSPECT it, even HYPOTHESIS it,
but I don't *KNOW* it, Petzl!!

And as for your "OK, just same building once run/owned by State
Government", I don't even think that is correct .... certainly not
Universally!!
--
Daniel

[Petzl]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:33:18 +1100, Daniel65
<dani...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>>>
>> OK, just same building once run/owned by State Government.
>> Not now.
>> Still there economic refugees getting housing paid for them at tax
>> payers expense. The new suburbs are full of "I can't speak english"
>> sopposedly bought in under skills shortages!
>>
>> The Government has designed the 2023–24 permanent Migration Program to
>> address persistent and emerging skills shortages and to attract people
>> with specialist skillsets that are difficult to find or develop in
>> Australia.
>>
>> But you knew that "Daniel65"
>>
>No, Petzl, I don't *KNOW* that!! I might SUSPECT it, even HYPOTHESIS it,
>but I don't *KNOW* it, Petzl!!
>

read it here
https://t.ly/_11Wk

2023­–24 permanent Migration Program
>

>And as for your "OK, just same building once run/owned by State
>Government", I don't even think that is correct .... certainly not
>Universally!!
>

I don't keep track of what government State or Federal runs what!
I were told by State NSW goveernment that Housing Commision (NSW),
gets it's mandates from Federal Government.
--
Petzl
What is the harm of for the Democrats validating the voting system.
Is it because the Democrats have something to hide?

Amazing to think that Lyndon Johnson perfected the
'sit-wait-see how many we need to win-then dump our
stuffed ballots at the last moment' electoral technique
in post-war Texas, and nothing has changed in US elections
in the 7 decades since.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas#Legal_battle>
The Left is fine with Vaccine Cards
but NOT voter IDs. Paying attention yet?

[Rod Speed]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:05:23 +1100, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:33:18 +1100, Daniel65
> <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> OK, just same building once run/owned by State Government.
>>> Not now.
>>> Still there economic refugees getting housing paid for them at tax
>>> payers expense. The new suburbs are full of "I can't speak english"
>>> sopposedly bought in under skills shortages!
>>>
>>> The Government has designed the 2023–24 permanent Migration Program to
>>> address persistent and emerging skills shortages and to attract people
>>> with specialist skillsets that are difficult to find or develop in
>>> Australia.
>>>
>>> But you knew that "Daniel65"
>>>
>> No, Petzl, I don't *KNOW* that!! I might SUSPECT it, even HYPOTHESIS it,
>> but I don't *KNOW* it, Petzl!!
>>
> read it here
> https://t.ly/_11Wk
> 2023–24 permanent Migration Program
>>
>> And as for your "OK, just same building once run/owned by State
>> Government", I don't even think that is correct .... certainly not
>> Universally!!
>>
> I don't keep track of what government State or Federal runs what!
> I were told by State NSW goveernment that Housing Commision (NSW),
> gets it's mandates from Federal Government.

Bullshit it does and the NSW state govt never ever said anything like that.

[Petzl]

The NSW housing wrote that fact back to me on a complaint about the
housing commission being selected and dedicated as a halfway house for
criminals out of prison on release
--
Petzl
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money.

On March fourteenth, in the year of our Lord. Eighteen eighty three
Karl Marx made his most important contribution to mankind...
He died

There is no difference between communism and socialism,
except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end:
communism proposes to enslave men by force,
socialism - by vote.
It is merely the difference between murder and suicide
#Margaret Thatcher

[Rod Speed]

Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote

Just some fool that has never had a fucking clue.

[Petzl]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:54:51 +1100, "Rod Speed"

It was cleaned up after I forwarded letter to my opposition Liberal
NSW Liberal MP within a month, rubbish (wrecked cars, rubber car
tyres. mattresses, etc.) removed from Housing commission front yards
street signs put back up.
Area became noemal again.
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
They wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain

[Rod Speed]

Because your MP got the HOUSING COMMISSION to do that,

Nothing whatever to do with the federal govt, fuckwit.

> Area became noemal again.

[Borax Man]

Right, so that would mean the cleams that migration is a benefit to
us, that it makes our lives better are debunked!

[Fran]

Learn to read.

No-one claimed that migration makes our lives better.

And I repeat, migration is not the cause of falling living standards in
the 4 areas I mentioned and and which is which is impacting on younger
Australians.

[Ördög]

Fran wrote:

/snip/

>
> No-one claimed that migration makes our lives better.

Hmmm.
Let us not kid ourselves. The proper function of our econopolitical
system is heavily reliant on the doctrine of mythical "infinite" growth.
Hence it needs population growth by any mean possible. Just look at
countries like Japan for instance where economic stagnation set in for
the last decade because of indigenous population decline coupled with
extremely restrictive immigration policies. Japan is now forced kicking
and screaming into opening its border to immigration and guest workers.

I always find so amusing that right-wing populist propaganda on this
issue always finds fertile grounds even though the political hard right
is the bastion of infinite growth capitalism.

Somehow the oxymoron nature of this scaremongering rubbish escapes those
who fall for this nonsense xenophobic rubbish. The truth is that those
who propagate this crap use it as a well established tactic that diverts
general discontent amongst the great unwashed about the real nature of
the current problems channelling it towards a conjured up false direction.

I was never against a proper, rational parliamentary debate on our
immigration system, but under the current political climate this seems
to be an impossible proposition, much like a fundamental taxation review
or a rethink on the ownership issue of essential public services.

> And I repeat, migration is not the cause of falling living standards in
> the 4 areas I mentioned and and which is which is impacting on younger
> Australians.

Clearly, the causes for the falling living standards of the working- and
middle classes are directly proportional to the steadily increasing
right shift in politics, which enables the corporate upper class to suck
most of the wealth out of society and create a wealth based neo-feudal
aristocracy which now basically dominates the political discourse in
this country as well as elsewhere. (Yes, I admit, I look at this process
from a Marxian analytical point of view, curse be upon me).

Furthermore, we are dealing here with a multi faceted global problem,
not a purely home grown one. The World's economy is in a flux, and the
end is nowhere near in sight.
Blaming Labor for instance for the hard to beat inflation, or the
housing crisis ignores huge problems, which are currently plaguing
economies around the planet.

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

[Fran]

On 19/02/2024 9:45 am, Ördög wrote:
> Fran wrote:
>
> /snip/
>>
>> No-one claimed that migration makes our lives better.
>
> Hmmm.
> Let us not kid ourselves. The proper function of our econopolitical
> system is heavily reliant on the doctrine of mythical "infinite" growth.
> Hence it needs population growth by any mean possible. Just look at
> countries like Japan for instance where economic stagnation set in for
> the last  decade because of indigenous population decline coupled with
> extremely restrictive immigration policies. Japan is now forced kicking
> and screaming into opening its border to immigration and guest workers.

:-)))) Indeed. I follow a couple who moved to Japan and who are living
rurally and all of their neighbours are geriatrics.

I'm certainly not a fan of our infinite growth migration but I am
certainly grateful for all the old folks homes workers and nurses and
Doctors.

>
> I always find so amusing that right-wing populist propaganda on this
> issue always finds fertile grounds even though the political hard right
> is the bastion of infinite growth capitalism.
>
> Somehow the oxymoron nature of this scaremongering rubbish escapes those
> who fall for this nonsense xenophobic rubbish. The truth is that those
> who propagate this crap use it as a well established tactic that diverts
> general discontent amongst the great unwashed about the real nature of
> the current problems channelling it towards a conjured up false direction.
>
> I was never against a proper, rational parliamentary debate on our
> immigration system, but under the current political climate this seems
> to be an impossible proposition, much like a fundamental taxation review
> or a rethink on the ownership issue of essential public services.
>
>> And I repeat, migration is not the cause of falling living standards
>> in the 4 areas I mentioned and and which is which is impacting on
>> younger Australians.
>
> Clearly, the causes for the falling living standards of the working- and
> middle classes are directly proportional to the steadily increasing
> right shift in politics, which enables the corporate upper class to suck
> most of the wealth out of society and create a wealth based neo-feudal
> aristocracy which now basically dominates the political discourse in
> this country as well as elsewhere. (Yes, I admit, I look at this process
> from a Marxian analytical point of view, curse be upon me).

I think that is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too simplistic an analysis. I think
a lot (but not all) of the worsening in outcomes in those 4 areas (worse
living conditions, less economically well off, dying earlier, poorer
health outcomes) can be put down to societal changes.

>
> Furthermore, we are dealing here with a multi faceted global problem,
> not a purely home grown one.

Yep. It's a shame that Trump's idiot and ignorant supporters haven't
bothered to find out what is going on in the world beyond America's
borders....

The World's economy is in a flux, and the
> end is nowhere near in sight.
> Blaming Labor for instance for the hard to beat inflation, or the
> housing crisis ignores huge problems, which are currently plaguing
> economies around the planet.

And, as I'm sure is have pointed out many times before, neither side of
politics is always right or always deserves support. Being a rusted on
voter just proves that voter to be clueless. Little Johnny Howard was
enough to give Josh the advice that ideology should be set aside during
a pandemic so if even an ideologue gets it....

NB: I'm hinting there Ordog.

[Ördög]

Fran
> Ördög
>> Fran

These four items on your is are the direct result of the horrible state
contemporary capitalism. Let us not kid ourselves, even capitalism could
do much better for the large masses if it moderated its current extreme
practices to a lot more gentle form that is provided by adhering to
social democracy.

>>
>> Furthermore, we are dealing here with a multi faceted global problem,
>> not a purely home grown one.
>
> Yep.  It's a shame that Trump's idiot and ignorant supporters haven't
> bothered to find out what is going on in the world beyond America's
> borders....
>
> The World's economy is in a flux, and the
>> end is nowhere near in sight.
>> Blaming Labor for instance for the hard to beat inflation, or the
>> housing crisis ignores huge problems, which are currently plaguing
>> economies around the planet.
>
> And, as I'm sure is have pointed out many times before, neither side of
> politics is always right or always deserves support.  Being a rusted on
> voter just proves that voter to be clueless.  Little Johnny Howard was
> enough to give Josh the advice that ideology should be set aside during
> a pandemic so if even an ideologue gets it....
>
> NB: I'm hinting there Ordog.

> Naughty Fran! ;-) LOL!

Regardless of the public image lying rodent might or might not have
displayed he was (still is) a ruthless strategist, yet a through and
through hard right ultra conservative ideologue even if those who have
come after his political demise among the Liberal Party's leadership
elite were even worse in this respect (except maybe for Turnbull).
Despite of what you might think, I am no Labor supporter, never was.
I simply do not support any outright rightwing or even right leaning
politics nor policies (surprise-surprise coming from a communist, eh?)

However, I clearly recognise for a fact that the Left often gets things
wrong, mainly because its internal disunity on the issue of determining
the most optimal rate of achieving desired social progress. Rushing
blindly policies, which clearly take time to formulate properly and
execute optimally tend to mess things up really badly.

Having said that, I can't name a single thing that the political right
does well socially nor economically. It is plagued by toxic
"individualism" (think of that 'sovereign citizens" nonsense for
instance), the dislike of any change that does not directly benefit them
nor aligns with their demagogy, and of course unapologetic and fully
unashamed greed.
Therefore, it is a sad state of affairs that my voting habits are
forcibly determined by selecting the least worst candidates instead of
the ability picking out the ones really of worthy voting for.

[Fran]

On 19/02/2024 1:22 pm, Ördög wrote:
> Fran

>>> Clearly, the causes for the falling living standards of the working-
>>> and middle classes are directly proportional to the steadily
>>> increasing right shift in politics, which enables the corporate upper
>>> class to suck most of the wealth out of society and create a wealth
>>> based neo-feudal aristocracy which now basically dominates the
>>> political discourse in this country as well as elsewhere. (Yes, I
>>> admit, I look at this process from a Marxian analytical point of
>>> view, curse be upon me).
>>
>> I think that is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too simplistic an analysis.  I
>> think a lot (but not all) of the worsening in outcomes in those 4
>> areas (worse living conditions, less economically well off, dying
>> earlier, poorer health outcomes) can be put down to societal changes.
>
> These four items on your is are the direct result of the horrible state
> contemporary capitalism.

Again, that is way too simplistic an analysis. Take for example just
the worsening living conditions. Yes, wages aren't keeping up but there
is also the societal changes in expectations from when I was young and I
don't think that change can be solely linked to "horrible state
contemporary capitalism".

Do you remember the comment about young 'uns doing without their smashed
avocado toast in order to get a home? I think that had a lot of truth
in it. I dunno if you are old enough to remember moving into a house
with no furniture other than a bed (if you were lucky) or if not a bed,
just a mattress on the floor. If you wanted to phone anyone you joined
the line outside a pubic phone box and waited till the phone was free.
etc, etc, etc.

Now that is just one small example but think about it as it applies to
all of those issues I mentioned.... lack of discipline, sense of
entitlement, not taking personal rsponsibility, not being frugal etc etc
etc. Those are personal qualities as opposed to operating factors of
contemporary capitalism. Anyone with even half a brain should be able
to figure out how that contemporary capitalism is trying to get your
money and therefore to thrive and get ahead of the game, you need to use
skills to take on adnd to beat that system.

Let us not kid ourselves, even capitalism could
> do much better for the large masses if it moderated its current extreme
> practices to a lot more gentle form that is provided by adhering to
> social democracy.

And so could those masses if they took personal responsibility, learned
to be frugal and did some planning and were prepared to get up each new
day and do it all over again......

>>> Furthermore, we are dealing here with a multi faceted global problem,
>>> not a purely home grown one.
>>
>> Yep.  It's a shame that Trump's idiot and ignorant supporters haven't
>> bothered to find out what is going on in the world beyond America's
>> borders....
>>
>> The World's economy is in a flux, and the
>>> end is nowhere near in sight.
>>> Blaming Labor for instance for the hard to beat inflation, or the
>>> housing crisis ignores huge problems, which are currently plaguing
>>> economies around the planet.
>>
>> And, as I'm sure is have pointed out many times before, neither side
>> of politics is always right or always deserves support.  Being a
>> rusted on voter just proves that voter to be clueless.  Little Johnny
>> Howard was enough to give Josh the advice that ideology should be set
>> aside during a pandemic so if even an ideologue gets it....
>>
>> NB: I'm hinting there Ordog.
>> Naughty Fran!  ;-) LOL!
>
> Regardless of the public image lying rodent might or might not have
> displayed he was (still is) a ruthless strategist, yet a through and
> through hard right ultra conservative ideologue even if those who have
> come after his political demise among the Liberal Party's leadership
> elite were even worse in this respect (except maybe for Turnbull).
> Despite of what you might think, I am no Labor supporter, never was.

I've never thought you were a Labor supporter. I think you are a
supporter of a theory that lacks sense in terms of how humanity operates.

> I simply do not support any outright rightwing or even right leaning
> politics nor policies (surprise-surprise coming from a communist, eh?)

Not at all a surprise.

> However, I clearly recognise for a fact that the Left often gets things
> wrong, mainly because its internal disunity on the issue of determining
> the most optimal rate of achieving desired social progress. Rushing
> blindly policies, which clearly take time to formulate properly and
> execute optimally tend to mess things up really badly.

And you see it's that very 'internal disunity' which is is why I think
Communist and each and every other political theory (and party) is full
of shit.

All very nice in theory but can't survive contact with real humans. Get
3 people together and there will be disunity so thinking that life or
politics will be any different has never sat well with me as it's just a
denial of how humans operate in society.

> Having said that, I can't name a single thing that the political right
> does well socially nor economically. It is plagued by toxic
> "individualism" (think of that 'sovereign citizens" nonsense for
> instance), the dislike of any change that does not directly benefit them
> nor aligns with their demagogy, and of course unapologetic and fully
> unashamed greed.

Yep. That is a fair assessment.

> Therefore, it is a sad state of affairs that my voting habits are
> forcibly determined by selecting the least worst candidates instead of
> the ability picking out the ones really of worthy voting for.

That is just reality. It was ever thus. We all have to vote for the
least worse option. Railing against it is railing against reality. And
we all do rail till we finally realise how futile it is to do so but
that willnever stop those of us who like to rail.

[Peter Jason]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:51:58 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:28:32 +1100, Borax Man <rotf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 19:49:25 +1100
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 15:44:58 +1100, Borax Man <rotf...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:59:20 +1100
>>> > "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:23:00 +1100, Borax Man <rotf...@hotmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100
>>> >> > Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>>> >> >> <rotf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>>> >> >> >><rotf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > *sip*
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax?
>>> And
>>> >> >> death
>>> >> >> >> duties?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses,
>>> affects
>>> >> >> >the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price
>>> determined
>>> >> >> >by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the
>>> market
>>> >> >> >can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
>>> >> >> >per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
>>> >> >> >in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and
>>> landlords
>>> >> >> >to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they
>>> >> together
>>> >> >> >can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something
>>> >> similar
>>> >> >> >happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage
>>> >> >> earners.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those
>>> who
>>> >> are
>>> >> >> >only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as
>>> those
>>> >> >> >who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
>>> >> >> >to the bottom.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have
>>> to
>>> >> be
>>> >> >> all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in
>>> half.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in
>>> the
>>> >> >> old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're
>>> throwing
>>> >> >> money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
>>> >> >> Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that
>>> Keynesian
>>> >> >> drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money
>>> >> would
>>> >> >> stimulate investment in manufacturing.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The Chinese are still laughing!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth
>>> >> bank
>>> >> >> which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious
>>> competitor
>>> >> >> to the other round-table sharks.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry
>>> too
>>> >> >> early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less
>>> one
>>> >> >> spends) and save, save, save.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowing
>>> >> > businesses to establish themselves, in particular
>>> >> > during the early stages where they are not yet at a profit.
>>>
>>> >> You are wrong about that. If there is no
>>> >> profit, there is no income to negative gear.
>>>
>>> >> You are confusing negative gearing and a business
>>> >> being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.
>>>
>>> > If they are working a job,
>>>
>>> Most new businesses don't.
>>>
>>> > have a share portfolio that pays dividends,
>>>
>>> Most new businesses don't.
>>>
>>> > they are making an income. That attracts a tax.NG applies to this.
>>>
>>> Most new businesses don't.
>>>
>>> >> > My argument is that the application of this concession
>>> >> > to housing doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
>>> >> > your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.
>>>
>>> >> Being a landlord is a business, stupid.
>>>
>>> > Thats a stretch, really is a stretch.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> > I'll ask the next landlord I see for their ABN number then.
>>>
>>> You don't need an ABN to be a business.
>>>
>>> > Someone who has bought a second house
>>> > and lends it is a businessman now!
>>>
>>> Always has been, and plenty have more than one too.
>>>
>>> > Spare me...
>>>
>>> No thanks, bullet in the back of the neck for someone as ignorant as
>>> you.
>>>
>>> >> > The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within
>>> the
>>> >> > scope.
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no such claim.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >> > It could make sense to say that income from the property itself,
>>> >> canbe
>>> >> > under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no tax deduction against the income from the property
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> >> What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
>>> >> from the property against your other taxable income.
>>>
>>> > Thats how NG works.
>>>
>>> What I said.
>>>
>>> > If you make a loss, that loss is deducted from
>>> > your taxable income. If you lose $20K, thenyour taxable income is
>>> > reduced by 20K,
>>>
>>> What I said.
>>>
>>> > regardless of whether that taxable incomecomes from your property or
>>> > not.
>>>
>>> What I said.
>>>
>>> > So you can effectively lower the income tax you pay from your9-5 job
>>> > through your "business" of renting out your second home.
>>>
>>> It isnt a second home if you rent it out all the time, its a business.
>>>
>>> > This is not the same as carrying over losses,as may happen if you
>>> sell
>>> > shares at a loss,
>>>
>>> You can't carry over that loss, you pig ignorant clown.
>>>
>>> > which would in later years bededucted from capital gains.
>>>
>>> Not if it isnt realised, you pig ignorant clown.
>>>
>>> >> > I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable
>>> tax
>>> >> > concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
>>> >> > removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the
>>> expenses
>>> >> > from the intial purchase.
>>> >>
>>> >> That's not negative gearing.
>>> >>
>>> >> > At some point this situation will change.
>>> >>
>>> >> Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
>>> >> a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
>>> >> that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
>>> >> of their hobby.
>>> >>
>>> >> > The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course it does with a holiday house that yousometimes rent out
>>> when
>>> >> you arent using it yourself.
>>>
>>> > This is a different scenario to buying up residential propertyin the
>>> > suburbs, outbidding those who want to buy to reside.
>>>
>>> Duh.
>>>
>>> > People keep bringing up exceptions
>>>
>>> That isnt an exception.
>>>
>>> > to justify a different norm.
>>>
>>> There is no 'norm'
>>>
>>> >> > especially when the investor is buying an already built house.
>>> We >
>>> >> treat these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.
>>> >>
>>> >> Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.
>>> >>
>>> >> > I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,
>>> >>
>>> >> You can make the same stupid claim about not having
>>> >> to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.
>>> >>
>>> >> > for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)
>>> >>
>>> >> Because they are some of the better pain in society.
>>> >>
>>> >> > and to prop up the market.
>>> >>
>>> >> The market doesnt need propping up.
>>>
>>> > Yet it is propped up.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> > We KNOW its propped up because when changesto NG is proposed, or
>>> change
>>> > to migration, peopleopenly state that it will impact (lower) prices.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> >> > I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the
>>> >> > investor is also the builder.
>>> >>
>>> >> No one cares what you could be swayed to support.
>>> >>
>>> >> Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
>>> >> property available for those who can not or not yet afford
>>> >> to buy the property they are living in.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property*
>>> torent
>>> >> > out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
>>> >> > price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.
>>> >>
>>> >> Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.
>>>
>>> > Again, the idea that its like buying a business is just preposterous,
>>>
>>> Being a landlord is a business.
>>>
>>> > a cultural creation to coddle landlords.
>>>
>>> Not when the rental property is making a profit
>>> and only a completely incompetant landlord isnt
>>> doing that with the rental market so tight.
>>>
>>> > I may as well argue that having shares means I'm a businessman,
>>>
>>> Are you seriously trying to claim that no one
>>> does nothing but own property and renit it out ?
>>>
>>> Even you can't actually be THAT pig ignorant.
>>>
>>> > or that I run a business sellingmy own labour to my employer.
>>>
>>> Plenty of contractors do just that, you pig ignorant fool.
>>>
>>> And they need to have an ABN to do that.
>>>
>>> > Why not.
>>>
>>> Why not indeed.
>>>
>>> > Ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Your sig is sposed to be last with
>>> a line with just -- on it in front of it.
>>>
>>> >> > If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for
>>> >> > passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does
>>> not
>>> >> > allow a profitable ROI,
>>> >>
>>> >> Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >> > then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
>>> >> > the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.
>>> >>
>>> >> Pity about the need for more rental housing.
>>> >>
>>> >> > This it where it becomes grossly unfair.
>>> >>
>>> >> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>> >>
>>> >> > That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it
>>> out,
>>> >> > not only outbid others who wanted to buy
>>> >> > it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they CHOSE
>>> >> > to pay a high price.
>>>
>>> >> And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.
>>>
>>> > Yes, provide rental housng to the person whowould have otherwise been
>>> > able to buy it.
>>>
>>> Few renters are, fool.
>>>
>>> > Landlord outbids the first home buyer, thenrents it to the first home
>>> > buyer claiming aNG tax concession because he overpaid.
>>>
>>> They actually charge the rent that provides a decent
>>> return in the current very tight rental market, fool
>>>
>>> > We wouldn't need as many rental propertiesif housing wasn't hoarded by
>>> > investors.
>>>
>>> They aren't hoarded, they are rented out in the very tight rental
>>> market,
>>> fool.
>>>
>>> >> > This ultimately inflates property prices, because if
>>> NegativeGearing
>>> >> > was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger lossand would be
>>> >> > compelled not to value the property so highly.
>>> >>
>>> >> And the house would not be available to someone who needs to rent.
>>> >>
>>> >> > The whole point of Capitalism is that we discover the true price
>>> of
>>> >> an
>>> >> > object.
>>> >>
>>> >> BULLSHIT. There never is any such animal as a true price.
>>>
>>> > Then we may as well get the state to set theprice, their price as good
>>> > as any other right?
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>> >> > You can calculate the true value of an investment property
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no such animal.
>>> >>
>>> >> > based on ROI from rental, and that valuemust be less than the
>>> income
>>> >> > obtained from
>>> >> > renting it out in order for it to be profitable.
>>> >>
>>> >> Not necessarily, particularly when the property
>>> >> is purchased because you have decided the
>>> >> capital gain will be what matters as it often is.
>>> >>
>>> >> > If the house must be purchased at $560K or lessin order to be
>>> >> > profitable when you rent it out,
>>> >>
>>> >> That is fanciful in the current market.
>>> >>
>>> >> > then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
>>> >> > Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial
>>> decisions.
>>> >>
>>> >> It isnt necessarily a bad financial decision, stupid.
>>>
>>> > Then in that case, remove the tax concessions,
>>>
>>> And see the very tight rental market get even tighter, fool.
>>>
>>> > and let these people make smart decisions.
>>>
>>> That's what they do.
>>>
>>> > If they overborrow,
>>>
>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>
>>> > that is on them. If they decide atAuction to pay $X and make a
>>> loss,
>>>
>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>
>>> > that is on them. No one forces anyoneto invest money and make a
>>> loss,
>>>
>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>
>>> > especially property investors.
>>>
>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>
>>> > No one forces me to borrow money to buy shareswhere the yield won't
>>> > cover repayments + interest.
>>>
>>> You don't get to negatively gear in that situation, fool.
>>>
>>> > As a tax payer I vote against supporting this.
>>>
>>> And your vote is completelely irrelevant, just like you are.
>
>> Well, if all this was good for the country, we wouldn'thave a long
>> standing housing crisis, would we?
>
>We don't have a long standing housing crisis. All we
>have is a tight rental market due to the fact that we
>have been stupid enough to allow hordes of migrants
>into the country, far fewer than we build new houses.

Complete nonsense! Migrants tent to live in close communities and are
notorious for stuffing many people into the one house. They're not
as stooopid as the average Ozite all who aspire towards a MacHouse
with a pool, several on-suites, a man cave, three-car garage and trees
lawns etc. That is, of course, when they're not jetting about
overseas throwing Oz dollars at the gypsies.

>
>> The fool here is you, defending somethingthat OBVIOUSLY is not working.
>
>Negative gearing was never intended to eliminate
>that problem and has been in place since LONG
>before we ever had that problem, fool.

Did you know there may be impressionable young people here, reading
your bullshit? You are corrupting the young, which used to be a
capital offense. Negative gearing has been rorted and rooted ever
since its inception (as though family trusts were not enough) and the
$$$trillion superannuation catastrophe to cap it all off!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing_in_Australia

[Rod Speed]

Not anymore. None of the ones I know do.

> and are notorious for stuffing many people into the one house.

You are talking about illegals, not migrants.
And even here, were slumlords do stuff lots
of 'people' into one house, there is a desperate
shortaage of rental accommodation even tho
hordes of new houses are being built, essentially
because FAR more legals and illegals show up
than we are building houses for.

> They're not as stooopid as the average Ozite all whoaspire towards a
> MacHouse with a pool, several on-suites,a man cave, three-car garage
> and trees lawns etc.

In fact the 3 sibling migrantes I know personally
have ALL just built fucking great 4 bedroom
MacMansions on a bare block of land and one
of them has 3 kids and the other two only 2 kids.
They all have multiple ensuites, trees and lawns
and have all been built on a bare block of land
that was previously orange trees. NONE of the
wives work because they don't believe that its
fair for the wives to work and do all the house
work with all of the kids still in school, all but
one in primary school.

> That is, of course, when they're not jetting about
> overseas throwing Oz dollars at the gypsies.

All the migrants I know personally go back to
Turkey every single year en mass, kids and all,
for the latest wedding, usually of one of the
males here marrying a cousin back in Turkey
and bringing her here on a marraige visa and
turn in to ozies as soon as that is legally possible.

>>> The fool here is you, defending something
>>> that OBVIOUSLY is not working.

>> Negative gearing was never intended to eliminate
>> that problem and has been in place since LONG
>> before we ever had that problem, fool.

> Did you know there may be impressionable young people here,

No such animal in usenet, stupid.

> reading your bullshit? You are corruptingthe young, which used to be
> a capital offense.

Bullshit it ever was in this country.

> Negative gearing has been rortedand rooted ever since its inception

And has provided more rental accomodation
than if we did not have negative gearing.

> (as though family trusts were not enough) and the
> $$$trillion superannuation catastrophe to cap it all off!

Irrelevant to the fact that it would be stupid to remove negative
gearing at a time of a desperate shortage of rental accomodation.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing_in_Australia

No news.