Subsonic said...

cisco said...

I regard real estate as a vehicle to wealth that will finance the nomadic lifestyle. I disagree whole heartedly, living space shouldnt be used as a retirement fund by some whilst others cant afford a home of their own, there are people out there who already live an unwanted nomadic life style.


That vehicle is available to most people. explain most people?

Real Estate is cyclic in nature and therefore there are right times to invest or divest. so what do the tenants in the investment property do when the owner decides its time to sell up? most of the people I know that have been in this situation simply got told they had to move on when the lease was up (and then have to go through the stress of finding somewhere else, which is getting harder and harder in perth at least, as investor owners are getting pickier and pickier as the demand for their rental property goes up)


It is a game like most things in life and with any game if you know the rules intimately and strategise, you can win at it. living space should never be a game imo, everyone should be able to have a home. It doesnt have to be a palace, just a place to call their own and raise a family (if so inclined), and not have to worry about the fact they may have to uproot everything and move on at someone elses whim.


Any game, like life, has only three guarantees. You will enter it. You will be in it for a limited time. You will leave it at a future date. Too true, but hows about a fair go for everyone?

I reckon the best thing that could happen at this point is for the powers that be, to limit housing ownership to two properties per person, and one of the properties must be for sale.

I know its far from being that simple (economies collapsing etc) but I think its time to take a good hard look at the situation that is being created by investment properties

I think you need to realise Subsonic that residential real estate investors provide a service to the community because the government is sadly lacking in it's provision of the same service.

That service is the provision of housing. If you think that private investors should provide it for free I suggest you and your friends go to Cuba, the last bastion of communism in the world.

Most monied people that I know have or are getting out of residential real estate investments because of damage to property by tenants, rent defaults and ever increasing council rates,interest rates and insurance costs just to name a few.

They can get a better return on their money with cash in the bank so don't go blaming the landlords for lack of availability and high rents.

Do you have any idea what your local council charges people before they can build a house on a piece of land in an already developed subdivision. Huge.

Re your comment:- I just hate the concept of rental property investing and think the people that came up with the concept originally should be strung up by the toes and neutered.

You are referring to the royal families of the world and I could not agree more.[}:)]

So the problem is property prices. Residential, commercial and industrial.

evlPanda said...

So the problem is property prices. Residential, commercial and industrial.

Yes. They are either too high, too low or not going anywhere.

Whether it is a problem or not depends on which hat you are wearing.

I think the real danger is subcribing to the norm formula:

New car = devalueing asset (if you can call it an asset)...... pointless exercise unless you are highly cashed up.

5 bedroom house with movie room - seriously, std packaged houses have fkn movie rooms? Do you need 5 rooms.... not saying everyone here wants this, but the construction companies are flogging loads of packages like this.... so lots of people must want them.

To get that 5 bed house you need two incomes = kids will have their mum around for first 9-12 months then cya mum, she's off to work to join this bullsh1t called "Working families". This working concept I find the biggest insult to humanity..... Families should spent time together, especially in the formative years...... little wonder so many illnesses, mental and physical are so common amoungst kids (obesity, adh etc)....

Working families is more about GDP, increased spending and consumption, increased profits, increased prices, increased everything, but decreased time families spend with each other. Every time I hear the words "working families" all I hear is 2 + 2 = 5 (Orwell)...... It has nothing to do with families.... its economics.... and so many people have subscribed to the standard formula....

And the family tax benefits etc... what a joke.... so the government subsidies to maintain artificial prices? If people can't afford items the prices go down.... middle class welfare is a joke......

My plan is to get back to basics as they were in the 80's.
One income, small but happy house. No need for the latest and greatest of living goods. Rather experiences with my kids (when I have them) over technology to entertain them... would rather go camping (cheap) and fishing, surfing, than to throw loads of money at Xbox games and trashy electro stuff.....

And simple household, so the wife can enjoy her time with the kids, as mother nature designed..... and while I'm at it.... feminism has done a lot of damage and a lot to answer for regarding the family institution.... sure, happy for future wife to work, but once the kids are at the age where that is cool..... she can become pres if she wants, but the kids can't be neglected.....

Family first, keep it simple, experiences over materialism......... living, not working to live.

/rantover

And all of a sudden house prices would have plummeted making them affordable for renters perhaps....

Neg gearing is a sham. Houses are necessities not commodities.

If people didn't have to pay off their house or rent, what would you do with your time?

K Dog said...

I think the real danger is subcribing to the norm formula:

New car = devalueing asset (if you can call it an asset)...... pointless exercise unless you are highly cashed up.

I agree with everything you said with the exception of the above line. I drive a lot of clicks to get to work and home each day ,over 80km round trip. That's bread and butter travelling, for that, I need reliable , economical transport. I also like to take long road trips to satisfy my passion for kiteboarding. I drive a Getz, it's the second one I have bought new. They are relatively cheap to buy and run, think the servicing could be cheaper though, they certainly know how to charge for the stuff that does'nt fall under scheduled servicing.

Car repairs are really expensive and it's simply too hard to maintain a modern car in a DIY fashion, was a piece of cake in the old days, when it was simply a set of points and a carby to worry about. Havin said all that, a new, basic type of car make a lot more sense for me economically than a second hand one with precious km clocked up on it, I need those clicks

cisco said...

Subsonic said...

cisco said...

I regard real estate as a vehicle to wealth that will finance the nomadic lifestyle. I disagree whole heartedly, living space shouldnt be used as a retirement fund by some whilst others cant afford a home of their own, there are people out there who already live an unwanted nomadic life style.


That vehicle is available to most people. explain most people?

Real Estate is cyclic in nature and therefore there are right times to invest or divest. so what do the tenants in the investment property do when the owner decides its time to sell up? most of the people I know that have been in this situation simply got told they had to move on when the lease was up (and then have to go through the stress of finding somewhere else, which is getting harder and harder in perth at least, as investor owners are getting pickier and pickier as the demand for their rental property goes up)


It is a game like most things in life and with any game if you know the rules intimately and strategise, you can win at it. living space should never be a game imo, everyone should be able to have a home. It doesnt have to be a palace, just a place to call their own and raise a family (if so inclined), and not have to worry about the fact they may have to uproot everything and move on at someone elses whim.


Any game, like life, has only three guarantees. You will enter it. You will be in it for a limited time. You will leave it at a future date. Too true, but hows about a fair go for everyone?

I reckon the best thing that could happen at this point is for the powers that be, to limit housing ownership to two properties per person, and one of the properties must be for sale.

I know its far from being that simple (economies collapsing etc) but I think its time to take a good hard look at the situation that is being created by investment properties

I think you need to realise Subsonic that residential real estate investors provide a service to the community because the government is sadly lacking in it's provision of the same service.

What is this service you speak of? have all the investors gotten together, decided theyve been a bit harsh charging too much rent and declared an amnesty? Should I and all the other renters immediately stop paying rent? none of the investors I know veiw their rental properties as a service to the community, theyre in it for monetary gain

That service is the provision of housing. If you think that private investors should provide it for free I suggest you and your friends go to Cuba, the last bastion of communism in the world.

I never said housing should be free, I said everyone should have the chance to pay off their own home rather than paying off someone elses property

Most monied people that I know have or are getting out of residential real estate investments because of damage to property by tenants, rent defaults and ever increasing council rates,interest rates and insurance costs just to name a few.

Some people have no respect for other peoples property I dont condone people commiting damage on purpose, but I think most people would respect their own property quite a lot more than another persons property, hence more reason for less rentals and more home ownership

They can get a better return on their money with cash in the bank so don't go blaming the landlords for lack of availability and high rents.

First part sounds good to me. As for the second bit, what are you on and where can I get some?

Do you have any idea what your local council charges people before they can build a house on a piece of land in an already developed subdivision. Huge.

A hell of a lot more than they would be charging if the investment property market had never come to be, whats your point?

Re your comment:- I just hate the concept of rental property investing and think the people that came up with the concept originally should be strung up by the toes and neutered.

You are referring to the royal families of the world and I could not agree more.[}:)]

Im happy to agree to disagree, One little seabreezer cant change the world.

Unless I form some sort of dictatorship and take it over, Adolf, any hints? an airforce of air swimmers maybe?[}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)]

K-Dog got it right. Feminism is definitely a problem. I would say being a stay at home mum experiencing a child growing up would be better than sucking up to some lame boss all day who has coffee breath. Anyway alot of women find it's too late when they have had their career and want kids. You get fertility issues.

I know families where I get stressed just listening to the amount of juggling they have to do to pay off the house, both working, two cars, taking kids to school/ rugby/birthdays and then there is just getting the simple things done like getting food.

YEP in that bracket also. only one kid so far though. was lucky to buy a house when prices were low twelve years ago. to save money dont drink dont smoke dont eat out try to limit your impulse buying dont buy big items new (eg cars boats caravans etc). It is very doable just need to spend on what you need and not what you want. I find people over the $60k mark complain the most, the more you earn the more yopu spend and when times are tough its hard to break that habit. My brothers income is well over the $60k and only has a wife no kids but seems to never have any money. cant work it out because his income would make a huge difference in my house hold. Also DIY around the house is the biggest saver off all if you have the know how may take longer but really does save a buck.

Yea not saying its always easy living on that much but you can do it. I still get out and enjoy myself just have to be a cheapskate about it. Dont pay for entertainment when you can get up the beach fishing or camping, not that doesnt come without a cost aswell but cheaper than going to the movies. Last time the missus and i went to one off those which was 3d by the time wed bought tickets food and drink we were down seventy bucks luck we dont have a local cinema

60 grand or 160 grand just spend it and if you can, save a little. But most of all stop whinging and get on with doing what you can afford to do !!

The notion that those on more than 60K whinge more than those is bull.

The notion that those who bought a house years ago and now have two or more are causing the housing price spiral (currently downward spiral in most cases) is bull. The reality is, as someone posted earlier, that the governments of any persuasion don't want to provide public housing above the bare minimum and the private market has to pick up the slack.

The issue of housing affordability is somewhat problematic due in a large part to home building companies brainwashing you into thinking you cannot survive without a 4x2 that has a theatre room and study let alone a two car garage with a 4x4 and jetski. I'm sure the wife and I aren't the only ones who lived in a 1 bedroom, one sleepout and one dunny asbestos house for the early years until we could either upgrade or extend.

Going back to the evlPandas original question - I don't support a family on that amount but we do have only one income. And I would have to do some serious life adjustment to do it but the bull that anyone earning more and having a rental property is causing someone else not to be able to afford a house is simplistic in the extreme. Oh and by the way, anyone who could get a loan for $185,000 could have had my parents house in Gosnells a year ago after they had to move out (and it even had a small pool).

End of rant.....