Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,
It's the people who borrow 90% of a house price where their repayments are two or three times what they might have paid in rent, who have bugger-all chance of ever getting it paid off, who are better off renting
Yes, precisely. It bears saying though because everywhere you turn you hear people (including the guy who very quickly became our ex mortgage broker) claiming that money given to the landlord is wasted. So is interest paid to the bank, and that must be factored in.
I suggest it will be funded from rents.
Which hasn't happened in other countries that have introduced a CGT. Neither has the tax curbed house market speculation, by and large, but then it still did what it was supposed to do - which was taxing an investment income.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to DexterX,
I am interested in your view as to where you think that a tax on unrealsied capital gains will come from??
If tomorrow we raise the tax rate on incomes over $100,000, where do you think the money will come from?
Same place.
-
Yeah... blame the translator, eh? :-)
-
Up Front: Say When, in reply to Mike Hollywood,
that first hole was pretty deep.
Yes but to keep digging is very masculine, hence becoming.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Danielle,
you can’t decorate the way you want
Not having to decorate is a plus for me. Plus the annoying landlord (of which we've had none, ever) gets to deal with the leaky roof, which is a big win.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,
X years of paying rent: money gone. X years of paying mortgage: money gone, but you own the house. Yay!
That's only if you don't separate interest payments from the principal. The rent is like an interest payment - it goes to the landlord, or the bank, and stays with them, and you get absolutely nothing in return, except the privilege of occupying a dwelling that you don't own. If you're paying a lot more in interest than you would in rent over a long period of time, then on average you'd be better off renting. With the money you save and what you don't spend in principal repayments, after X years you still buy a house. (This is based on the fact that historically house prices have risen only marginally above inflation. We've just been through a bubble so it's easy to get enthusiastic about capital gains.)
-
The psychology of it is a little puzzling to me I confess. People say you throw your money away if you give it to a landlord - what, as opposed to a bank? In the end we bought at a time when the balance of our savings, average rents and house prices meant our repayments were on a par with what we would have spent on rent. If they are, buy, if they're not, rent and save. I refuse to think it's actually possible to time the market unless you are loaded.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Danielle,
Isn't it 'woozy', though?
Too right. I think it's a good arrangement: you guys get to correct my English and I your Latin.
(I would go to that museum.)
It's on a plane, you wouldn't like that.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
nauseum
Nauseam. Sorry, I keep having to say it: it's not the museum of feeling whoozy.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
There has to be some kind of hard test, otherwise people will take the piss as they do currently.
I'll happily trade a class of traders and speculators who own ten-plus houses at a time with one of serial renovators who flick a single one off every couple of years.