Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 5:54pm:


or alternatively , you could try to comment on the reality of the property market as it exists

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:


Ok the reality of the situation then

Why is there no such thing as a first share buyers grant for mums and dads investors ?

And do you know of any business that continuously makes a loss each year but at the end is usually worth more than what you payed for it ?

Please let me know because I want to negatively gear it so I can sell it for more than what I payed for it

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

Opponents of negative gearing say,

    It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion.
    Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers.
    In Australia in 2007, 9 out of 10 negatively geared properties are for existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties.
    It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market.
    Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes.
    Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs.
    A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. (Deductibility of for example business losses when there was a reasonable expectation of gaining income is well-accepted, the point against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base.)

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:14pm:


thats because once it generates income it stops being negatively geared and becomes positively geared , the same house, the same loan , the same rent, the same people  ... the only thing that changes is the name .... imagine that.

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 10:44am:


1) Because you cant live in a share portfolio
2) You only need $1000 to enter the share market which is significantly less than that required to enter the property market.
3) Because the first home owners grant was only for owner occupied, it didn't apply to investors.
4) Because building a new house has flow on benefits to other areas of the economy.

First home buyers weren’t locked out by the ending of the first home vendors’ grant: they were locked out by the impossibly high prices that this grant has helped generate over the 30 years since it was first invented. And its purpose has never been to give first home buyers a helping hand: it has always been used as a way of giving the economy the economic equivalent of a steroid injection. First home buyers have instead been the sacrificial lambs of an asset-price-inflation route to apparent national prosperity.

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 10:44am:


I did read the rest of it and its more bollocks. Sounds like something you would write

As for no first share buyers grant, what a stupid argument. A house costs peole many times their annual income ... you can buy a share for .05c ....  what would you like the grant set at? .01c?

I'll petition my local MP on your behalf for it.   

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 3:06pm:


IS that what you've been trying to prove? 

Alll you had to do was ask ... I don't think anyone has denied that the govt. has meddled in it.

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 3:06pm:


and you've got that from where? I at the moment only own one house, the one I live in. I guess that proves what a load of crap your argument really is ....

or alternatively , you could try to comment on the reality of the property market as it exists

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 4:21pm:


no you didn't ... your comment started with the word which means you were referring to me. The reality of it is I at the moment have no investment properties. Your comment is meaningless.