or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Australian Members - Page 2571

post #38551 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli2012 View Post

He's not our worst dress pollie.

Agreed. I just thought it was interesting seeing him in the RMWs. I wonder if he wore them before his predecessor when on official business (back when he was a minister in the Howard PM days)? I never paid any attention back then.
post #38552 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Sy View Post
 

Haha :cheers:. I am down near the wharf.

 

In the last 20 years, the amount of people that have come to this country by boat would only just fill the MCG. It's all the Baby Boomers that are being greedy as F**K with their self-managed super funds and playing poker with OUR property!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charliechan View Post
 

 

Or these alleged 'foreign' investors. Although I have my theory that all this talk about foreign investors buying up all the property are actually immigrants who grew up here but with a strong culture of buying land. I.e. Chinese. 

 

 

 

Also negative gearing... There was a pretty good article recently, about how negative gearing inflates property values because investors are able to use it to offset their taxable income, whereas lower income earners may not... I can't find it, it had some American commentator saying "cant believe the tax system rewards failure to gear properly"

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boff View Post


Me too! Let's have a Balmain meetup.

 

Definitely

post #38553 of 57102
Might be in Sydney in the next month or so, is Cremone Point a good place to stay? Need to be within striking distance of CBD but would prefer somewhere a little quiet.
post #38554 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by couldnthaveknow View Post


Also negative gearing... There was a pretty good article recently, about how negative gearing inflates property values because investors are able to use it to offset their taxable income, whereas lower income earners may not... I can't find it, it had some American commentator saying "cant believe the tax system rewards failure to gear properly"

Negative gearing is a vexed issue.

On the one hand, as you say, it rewards failure - people are getting a tax deduction for consistently making a loss, in the hope that although they're making an ongoing loss the property will increase in value so they will be able to sell it at a profit down the track.

On the other hand, it's not as though real estate is the only investment that can be negatively geared - as an example, you can also take advantage of negative gearing when investing in shares, if the interest repayments on money that you have borrowed to purchase the shares exceeds the income that you receive from dividend payments.

Therefore, some investors say that it's a bit unfair that negative gearing for real estate is often singled out for criticism although, given our national obsession with real estate, that's hardly surprising!

Personally, I don't think that allowing negative gearing for existing properties makes much sense, as it is subsidising an unproductive asset. It would be better to change it so that negative gearing is only allowed on newly-built dwellings, so as to encourage investment in new housing stock. Alternatively, of course, negative gearing could be removed altogether so that the value of the investment has to stand on its own two feet, so to speak, instead of being subsidised by the government (and, by extension, by taxpayers who don't have investment properties).
post #38555 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ernesto View Post
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
is Cremone Point a good place to stay? Need to be within striking distance of CBD but would prefer somewhere a little quiet.

 

 

Definitely. Cremorne is gorgeous. You can't go wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post

  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Negative gearing is a vexed issue.

On the one hand, as you say, it rewards failure - people are getting a tax deduction for consistently making a loss, in the hope that although they're making an ongoing loss the property will increase in value so they will be able to sell it at a profit down the track.

On the other hand, it's not as though real estate is the only investment that can be negatively geared - as an example, you can also take advantage of negative gearing when investing in shares, if the interest repayments on money that you have borrowed to purchase the shares exceeds the income that you receive from dividend payments.

Therefore, some investors say that it's a bit unfair that negative gearing for real estate is often singled out for criticism although, given our national obsession with real estate, that's hardly surprising!

Personally, I don't think that allowing negative gearing for existing properties makes much sense, as it is subsidising an unproductive asset. It would be better to change it so that negative gearing is only allowed on newly-built dwellings, so as to encourage investment in new housing stock. Alternatively, of course, negative gearing could be removed altogether so that the value of the investment has to stand on its own two feet, so to speak, instead of being subsidised by the government (and, by extension, by taxpayers who don't have investment properties).

 

JM strikes again! Couldn't have put it better. I agree with your idea of only allowing negative gear on new housing stock as opposed to fueling the returns of blatant speculation.

post #38556 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ernesto View Post

Might be in Sydney in the next month or so, is Cremone Point a good place to stay? Need to be within striking distance of CBD but would prefer somewhere a little quiet.

 

Only really convenient if you will have a car. It's not on the rail line. If you're going to be staying on the north side, North Sydney/Crows Nest?St Leonards is more convenient.

post #38557 of 57102
You realize that all that negative gearing does is allow equitable treatment of losses between individuals and businesses. I'd rather not deal with (i.e. pay for) the number of small business tax returns if you removed it. JM why would you want to distort the market in favor of new development?
post #38558 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ernesto View Post

Might be in Sydney in the next month or so, is Cremone Point a good place to stay? Need to be within striking distance of CBD but would prefer somewhere a little quiet.

 

Mate Cremorne point is a nice area but not much by way of public transport... Recommend you have a look at potts point, rose bay, or even centennial park are all pretty quiet areas 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post


Negative gearing is a vexed issue.

On the one hand, as you say, it rewards failure - people are getting a tax deduction for consistently making a loss, in the hope that although they're making an ongoing loss the property will increase in value so they will be able to sell it at a profit down the track.

On the other hand, it's not as though real estate is the only investment that can be negatively geared - as an example, you can also take advantage of negative gearing when investing in shares, if the interest repayments on money that you have borrowed to purchase the shares exceeds the income that you receive from dividend payments.

Therefore, some investors say that it's a bit unfair that negative gearing for real estate is often singled out for criticism although, given our national obsession with real estate, that's hardly surprising!

Personally, I don't think that allowing negative gearing for existing properties makes much sense, as it is subsidising an unproductive asset. It would be better to change it so that negative gearing is only allowed on newly-built dwellings, so as to encourage investment in new housing stock. Alternatively, of course, negative gearing could be removed altogether so that the value of the investment has to stand on its own two feet, so to speak, instead of being subsidised by the government (and, by extension, by taxpayers who don't have investment properties).

 

good point, well put. The other thing I'd add is property is usually higher leveraged than shares too, so very prevalent for negative gearing. What you say about new properties is right - that's exactly what Sydney needs... bit more land release, build some new houses creates jobs, and alleviates some housing availability pressure... 

 

The one thing I noticed about vancouver is - they build apartments very tall, say, 20 odd stories, whereas here we are all 3 story apartments... but, that means we need to invade some areas like lane cove park, to build... I always thought a bit more approval for taller apartments which can house more people wouldnt be a bad idea - especially for suburbs closer to the city where walking is really a viable option (pyrmont maybe, or chippendale, glebe, etc) 

post #38559 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superfudge View Post

Only really convenient if you will have a car. It's not on the rail line. If you're going to be staying on the north side, North Sydney/Crows Nest?St Leonards is more convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by couldnthaveknow View Post

Mate Cremorne point is a nice area but not much by way of public transport... Recommend you have a look at potts point, rose bay, or even centennial park are all pretty quiet areas 

Thanks gents. Practicality will have to win out because I will be car-less.
post #38560 of 57102
Thanks, Ernesto.

Stayed west of the Tevere, 10 min walk to everything. Nice little B&B. Vatican Museum and Palatino have been my favourite sights so far.
post #38561 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by couldnthaveknow View Post
 

 

Sydney needs... bit more land release, build some new houses creates jobs, and alleviates some housing availability pressure... 

 

I always thought a bit more approval for taller apartments which can house more people wouldnt be a bad idea

 

Sydney really needs to go up, not out. Australians have this fear of high rise apartments, yet demand reasonable house prices. It just isn't possible.

post #38562 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Sy View Post
 

 

Sydney really needs to go up, not out. Australians have this fear of high rise apartments, yet demand reasonable house prices. It just isn't possible.

 

Sydney needs good and reliable public transport. Way overdue for an underground metro. Everyone wants to live near the city because commuting and parking are nightmarish.  You can get cheap fancy digs out in the boondocks if you dont mind 2 hour travel each way every working day. Problem is current rail infrastructure is at least 10 years behind (as of the date of the Waterfall report), and if we start spending the money now (money which the govt does not have), we will only see the full benefits in 10 years, and then the cycle repeats itself. Catch 22.

post #38563 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petepan View Post

You can get cheap fancy digs out in the boondocks if you dont mind 2 hour travel each way every working day.

No such thing as “Cheap house” in Sydney. Its only “Cheaper” if you anyone wants to travel 2 hours each way. Even then a rundown hose will cost you over $250k++ in those areas.
post #38564 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ernesto View Post



Thanks gents. Practicality will have to win out because I will be car-less.

 

Paddington (East), Wollstonecraft (North), Annandale (West) and Surry HIlls (south) is the general 'ring' you want in on if you want to be within striking distance of the CBD.

 

Paddington transport = buses. Peaceful, good (trendy) retail, but a little bit expensive.

Wollstonecraft transport = train station. Quiet suburban area; close to Crows Nest shopping area.

Annandale transport = buses. Semi suburban. Aircraft noise, and Parramatta road is horrendous. Don't bother going out West unless you really want to.

Surry Hills = walking distance. Not that quiet, but a really nice area nonetheless. Lots of bars and eateries.

post #38565 of 57102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxhound View Post
 

Got home to this on my bed.

In the Fedex Box was this;

As seen here.


And for a bit of fun, this.

 

Nice jacket. I see there are a phlethora of Barbours pertaining to be vintage 'Skyfall'on Ebay.

Most of which have velvet collars and are basically aged Bedales...

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members