by bennymacca » Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:53 pm
by Q. » Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:10 pm
by mighty_tiger_79 » Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:48 pm
by mighty_tiger_79 » Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:49 pm
by GWW » Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:57 pm
by cracka » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:04 am
by mighty_tiger_79 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:33 am
by stan » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:55 am
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I haven't seen the fine print so just going off the media beat up.
Initial thoughts is that its a good thing.
But then hearing another policy that is identical will be introduced, meaning nothing really changes, is disappointing.
by mighty_tiger_79 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:15 pm
by Magellan » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:49 pm
cracka wrote:So what are peoples thoughts on the new citizenship & 457 working visas policies?
by shoe boy » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:35 am
cracka wrote:So what are peoples thoughts on the new citizenship & 457 working visas policies?
by Grenville » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:49 pm
cracka wrote:So what are peoples thoughts on the new citizenship & 457 working visas policies?
by Psyber » Mon May 01, 2017 10:45 am
bennymacca wrote:My understanding is that capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing are what needs to be addressed. Perhaps you could phase them out over a very long period of time? Or maybe only for new houses in the short term etc
by Jimmy_041 » Mon May 01, 2017 1:13 pm
bennymacca wrote:My understanding is that capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing are what needs to be addressed. Perhaps you could phase them out over a very long period of time? Or maybe only for new houses in the short term etc
by bennymacca » Mon May 01, 2017 2:46 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Tue May 02, 2017 10:17 am
bennymacca wrote:its not an easy problem to solve, and plagued by self interest given how many politicians have rental properties.
and the other week i was asked whether i would accept a fall in my own house price to make the market more accessible to young people, and I dont think I would. So there is my self interest too.
I still think it is unreasonable to expect 100% of the population to have the means to afford a house. But what that number should be is hard. should only the top 50% of earners be able to afford a house? 80%? 30?
No idea
by Psyber » Mon May 08, 2017 5:48 pm
by RB » Mon May 08, 2017 9:19 pm
by Q. » Mon May 08, 2017 10:20 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:bennymacca wrote:its not an easy problem to solve, and plagued by self interest given how many politicians have rental properties.
and the other week i was asked whether i would accept a fall in my own house price to make the market more accessible to young people, and I dont think I would. So there is my self interest too.
I still think it is unreasonable to expect 100% of the population to have the means to afford a house. But what that number should be is hard. should only the top 50% of earners be able to afford a house? 80%? 30?
No idea
Whomever is prepared to sacrifice some other part of their life to pay the mortgage(s)
On a different aspect, I think people are ignoring how difficult / hot the rental market is as well.
I hope people realise that once I lose any tax deductions, I will increase the rental rate to compensate
This is a bit like the subsidy for private health. Remove it and the public system will be overwhelmed
by Q. » Mon May 08, 2017 10:23 pm
bennymacca wrote:its not an easy problem to solve, and plagued by self interest given how many politicians have rental properties.
and the other week i was asked whether i would accept a fall in my own house price to make the market more accessible to young people, and I dont think I would. So there is my self interest too.
I still think it is unreasonable to expect 100% of the population to have the means to afford a house. But what that number should be is hard. should only the top 50% of earners be able to afford a house? 80%? 30?
No idea
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |