Parramatta Stadium Rebuild and other stuff

[TheRam]

A bullish real estate market is a symptom of a strong economy in a city with a high global liveability index ranking. If you want affordable, then you have to apply those same supply / demand laws and go live in a less popular city.

Name me an stunning city with amazing weather, on a harbour, lined with cool beaches with low unemployment, high wages, low crime with affordable housing. Yeah it doesn't exist.

I didn't say they should be giving them away. Let the market decide. But negative gearing is an artificial inflation mechanism in both the stock market and real estate for just two examples. My investment losses should not be offset by every taxpayer. As for home owners, their primary residence should be. It is all upside down. If you want everyone to be able to afford housing again, then that is where the tax gearing should be. Not to investors to speculate and even just buy multiple properties in massive investment portfolios and simply hold on to them knowing that tax incentives will artificially allow for more investors to buy even more properties and drive up the prices to ridiculous levels as we have now.

Then everything and I mean everything will be artificially inflated due to the price of real estate. True competition is then stifled and doesn't allow for example lower rents, domestic and commercial, therefore your loaf of bread as an example has been adversely affected by this rich getting richer tax system.

Pollies love it due to their investment portfolios making a killing. Keating got it half right when he removed it, but didn't transfer it over to home owners. If he had done that, he would have never been able to reverse it due to all his Polly mates having a dummy spit and sooking about their flat investments. The people power and outrage would of been to much for him to survive once the nation saw the universal benefits that would have flowed from it.

 

[84 Baby]

I didn't say they should be giving them away. Let the market decide. But negative gearing is an artificial inflation mechanism in both the stock market and real estate for just two examples. My investment losses should not be offset by every taxpayer. As for home owners, their primary residence should be. It is all upside down. If you want everyone to be able to afford housing again, then that is where the tax gearing should be. Not to investors to speculate and even just buy multiple properties in massive investment portfolios and simply hold on to them knowing that tax incentives will artificially allow for more investors to buy even more properties and drive up the prices to ridiculous levels as we have now.

Then everything and I mean everything will be artificially inflated due to the price of real estate. True competition is then stifled and doesn't allow for example lower rents, domestic and commercial, therefore your loaf of bread as an example has been adversely affected by this rich getting richer tax system.

Pollies love it due to their investment portfolios making a killing. Keating got it half right when he removed it, but didn't transfer it over to home owners. If he had done that, he would have never been able to reverse it due to all his Polly mates having a dummy spit and sooking about their flat investments. The people power and outrage would of been to much for him to survive once the nation saw the universal benefits that would have flowed from it.

How much affect does negative gearing actually have on property prices? Getting back like 1-1.5% interest rate, .75-1.25% of build cost (that you add back on sale anyway) and a declining maybe 5-10% on depreciation (a semi-closed loophole)? If you complained about the cgt discount I’d have been inclined to agree somewhat. But anyone buying investment property based on tax benefits is an idiot.

And you link house prices to prices of other items like bread? So if you reduce property prices to reduce those costs, you reduce everything else in the economy like wages. Guess who’s going to feel the pinch first, regardless of a drop in cost of living? Those who couldn’t afford properties in the first place. The middle class will also feel the pinch a bit, so they’ll slide further from the upper class. Guess who won’t feel the pinch? Congrats you just made the rich richer.

Influencing price corrections are fine. Long term recessions are not

 

[Gronk]

I didn't say they should be giving them away. Let the market decide. But negative gearing is an artificial inflation mechanism in both the stock market and real estate for just two examples. My investment losses should not be offset by every taxpayer. As for home owners, their primary residence should be. It is all upside down. If you want everyone to be able to afford housing again, then that is where the tax gearing should be. Not to investors to speculate and even just buy multiple properties in massive investment portfolios and simply hold on to them knowing that tax incentives will artificially allow for more investors to buy even more properties and drive up the prices to ridiculous levels as we have now.

Then everything and I mean everything will be artificially inflated due to the price of real estate. True competition is then stifled and doesn't allow for example lower rents, domestic and commercial, therefore your loaf of bread as an example has been adversely affected by this rich getting richer tax system.

Pollies love it due to their investment portfolios making a killing. Keating got it half right when he removed it, but didn't transfer it over to home owners. If he had done that, he would have never been able to reverse it due to all his Polly mates having a dummy spit and sooking about their flat investments. The people power and outrage would of been to much for him to survive once the nation saw the universal benefits that would have flowed from it.

Blaming the high cost of real estate on negative gearing alone is wrong. Sydney and Melbourne are expensive because of the white collar job market is centred around these two cities. Land in desirable locations is limited and in a well paid populous, that makes land expensive. Add to that the high building costs in a high labour market, cheap money, banks lending to anyone and you start to get spiralling house prices.

Then we have a very successful skilled migration program. We only let in merkins who have skills to fill vacancies in the labour market. Most of these people are tertiary qualified and that brings with it high salaries. So there is a demand for rental properties on top of the sale properties. High rental returns make it attractive for investors notwithstanding negative gearing. Fun fact: the greater majority of property investors in Australia are positively geared, meaning that their rent exceeds their liabilities. The rental market has had a low vacancy rate for decades because of the skilled and student migration programs, so much so that Sydney and melbourne cannot keep up.

 

[Suitman]

Blaming the high cost of real estate on negative gearing alone is wrong. Sydney and Melbourne are expensive because of the white collar job market is centred around these two cities. Land in desirable locations is limited and in a well paid populous, that makes land expensive. Add to that the high building costs in a high labour market, cheap money, banks lending to anyone and you start to get spiralling house prices.

Then we have a very successful skilled migration program. We only let in merkins who have skills to fill vacancies in the labour market. Most of these people are tertiary qualified and that brings with it high salaries. So there is a demand for rental properties on top of the sale properties. High rental returns make it attractive for investors notwithstanding negative gearing. Fun fact: the greater majority of property investors in Australia are positively geared, meaning that their rent exceeds their liabilities. The rental market has had a low vacancy rate for decades because of the skilled and student migration programs, so much so that Sydney and melbourne cannot keep up.

Agreed.
Hence, the burgeoning growth in high density construction near transport hubs.
The changes in construction building zoning nearby these transport hubs has played a large part in keeping up with demand. That demand has been high.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

You merkins amaze me. I thought I lived in a fantasy world. Fairdinkum!

 

[Gronk]

You merkins amaze me. I thought I lived in a fantasy world. Fairdinkum!

How very condescending of you.

 

[Happy MEel]

Agreed.
Hence, the burgeoning growth in high density construction near transport hubs.
The changes in construction building zoning nearby these transport hubs has played a large part in keeping up with demand. That demand has been high.

Yep this is spot on. All of the councils I work with are developing housing/town centre strategies that focus on uplift around public transport hubs. Makes sense as they’re required to plan for considerable population growth set by the Greater Sydney Commission and there’s very limited (if any) green space for new development. If there’s going to be high density it needs to be where there’s infrastructure to support it.

 

[emjaycee]

Too bad our various state governments for the last 30 years have failed miserably in developing the required transport infrastructure to support our expanding population.

I have spent the last 3 weeks in Rome, Paris and London (3 of Europes largest cities but 2 still smaller than Sydney) and each of these cities have bus, train and metro systems that actually support their populations and make it easy to move around. We are so far behind it isn't funny.

 

[strider]

What have the Romans ever done for us?

 

[Bazal]

Too bad our various state governments for the last 30 years have failed miserably in developing the required transport infrastructure to support our expanding population.

I have spent the last 3 weeks in Rome, Paris and London (3 of Europes largest cities but 2 still smaller than Sydney) and each of these cities have bus, train and metro systems that actually support their populations and make it easy to move around. We are so far behind it isn't funny.

Australia in general seems to be appalling at transport infrastructure. Even when they try and fix it, they f**k it up. Even in a glorified country town like Canberra they've taken half a step into the future with a small section of light rail, but used that as a reason to f**k the transport for the rest of the city lol.

I think it'll probably be as long as Rome has existed before we get even halfway to their level tbh

 

[Noise]

What have the Romans ever done for us?

 

[TheRam]

Blaming the high cost of real estate on negative gearing alone is wrong. Sydney and Melbourne are expensive because of the white collar job market is centred around these two cities. Land in desirable locations is limited and in a well paid populous, that makes land expensive. Add to that the high building costs in a high labour market, cheap money, banks lending to anyone and you start to get spiralling house prices.

Then we have a very successful skilled migration program. We only let in merkins who have skills to fill vacancies in the labour market. Most of these people are tertiary qualified and that brings with it high salaries. So there is a demand for rental properties on top of the sale properties. High rental returns make it attractive for investors notwithstanding negative gearing. Fun fact: the greater majority of property investors in Australia are positively geared, meaning that their rent exceeds their liabilities. The rental market has had a low vacancy rate for decades because of the skilled and student migration programs, so much so that Sydney and melbourne cannot keep up.

Of course all the points you have mentioned contribute, but negative gearing is huge when it comes to property portfolios. If it wasn't such a big deal, why then all the dome and gloom about removing it by the opposition? Also why did they reinstate it back in 1987? I guarantee you it wasn't for the mums and dads benefit.

Tell you what, I believe NZ are abolishing it this year, so lets just wait and see what happens to their property prices over the long term.

 

[Kornstar]

Too bad our various state governments for the last 30 years have failed miserably in developing the required transport infrastructure to support our expanding population.

I have spent the last 3 weeks in Rome, Paris and London (3 of Europes largest cities but 2 still smaller than Sydney) and each of these cities have bus, train and metro systems that actually support their populations and make it easy to move around. We are so far behind it isn't funny.

It is quite comical though. They just build a wonderful metro to The Ponds and curve it to go from Windsor Road into Schofields Road and stop it before the exisiting railway at Schofields.......while they are forging on down Windsor Road with a f**k load of development all the way to Windsor and they take a sharp left turn for no reason.

Dumbest f**ks ever!! They will take cars off the road from The Ponds towards the city but more cars will use the road coming from Windsor to the city and no public transport options out that way.

A better trip from the North West into Parramatta would be awesome too!

 

[Suitman]

SFS 1st July. Right click to enlarge.

 

[strider]

The grass could do with a watering

 

[Gronk]

The grass could do with a watering

Water restrictions FFS !

 

[T-Boon]

I wonder if in the off season they can dig the playing surface down a couple metres. Those stadiums where the seating is elevated a few metres above the ground look great.

 

[chiefy1]

I wonder if in the off season they can dig the playing surface down a couple metres. Those stadiums where the seating is elevated a few metres above the ground look great.

They'll hit pipes

 

[T-Boon]

They'll hit pipes

So dig while high.

 

[chiefy1]

So dig while high.

Yea i agree. We should dig it up after round 25 just to piss the Wanderers off lol