Forum Replies Created
- Originally posted by richmond:
“So even if Australians don’t consider themselves greedy, on some measures we are. Particularly if we define greed as taking more than our fair share. In 1998 the United Nations Development Program estimated a child born in Australia would consume the same as 30-50 children born in developing countries.” – I think it’s pretty clear what angle the writer is coming from there.
Bingo! There you go…. the more you have, because you achieved, and therefore consume, the greedier you are…..NOT.
Can you see how this is such a classic anti-value? Oh no! the kids of those rotten Aussie are eating us out of house and home!
What a nonsense. If we consume more it is because we have more to give in exchange, it is not like we are stealing aren’t we?
I tell you what, if the western world would stop consuming the developing countries would starve even more. The world economy is fuelled by offer and demand, the proposing to slow the demand means what exactly?The rational behind this victim mentality statement that are so common to become an irritating nuisance is that wealth is a finite commodity and that if “the Aussie kids” take more than “the developing country kids” then they will starve because we eat too much.
What a load of rubble that is. Wealth is created by the intelligent, the bold, the adventurous the successful and such creation is not done at others expenses but actually to the advantage of others.
If I enlarge the marketplace with a creation of mine, I will benefit from the fruits but so will million of others in an economic chain reaction.Of course this is a very un-popular economic theory, it is much easier to blame the “rich” for “poverty”.
What does greed mean to you Marc1?The difference between greed and ambition is that the greedy accumulates whatever it is, out of fear of the future since he sees this present opportunity to stockpile, as one in a lifetime, since it is not the result of a calculated intelligent plan, but more pot luck and never to be repeated again. Greed comes together with fear, lack of confidence and a conviction of inadequacy.
The ambitious may stock up money, properties, shares or gold bullion but it is as the result of a journey he is confident in and that is bringing in predictable results, easily repeated if everything fails. The ambitious enjoys the ride, gets his kicks from the journey, and the prizes are a consequence of his lifestyle.
To call such person greedy is economically absurd since it dismisses the roll on effect of his spending and the fact that his wealth is his creation and not the result of plunder and robbery taking away from “the poor”.
Why would journos write articles that weren’t of interest to anyone? Doesn’t make much sense to me.Mm where did I say that? I say that journalist who themselves have little to show for all their pretenses of know it all, write whatever they think will be eye catching, sometimes giving the impression they know better when in fact thier very occupation is not necessarily a showcase of success.
It does not need too much research to realise that victim mentality stock phrases are a good eye catcher, so “GREEDY FAT CAT ROBS POOR KID OF HIS CHRISTMAS” would make the first page. 95% of the readers will immediately buy the paper to confirm their view of the world where the rich becomes rich at the expense of the poor.
Of course if you later read the article, the fat cat was a property investor who bought a housing commission place, (what a nerve, can you believe this ba**ard? doesn’t he have enough houses already?) and the poor kid, was a tenant who had to move to another house disrupting his Christmas. Of course the jurno will fail to add to his “justice call” that the selling of the house was a governemt decision, that the taxes the investor produces are enough to subsidise 10 housing department proeprties, and that the tenant’s family has been of welfare for three generations.
One more paper sold!May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcOriginally posted by MichaelWhyte:Its official. According the SMH today we’re a greedy bunch and getting greedier, and what’s more this is a good thing!
You thrifty types better get out there and spend up big over Christmas like all those good people contributing to our economic growth. Forecasts say we’ll spend on average $1650 for every person in Australia. I haven’t spent my $3300 for my wife and I so I better get started.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/12/09/1102182420352.html
And I thought I was being responsible…
Strange comments.
It all comes down to semantics. What is greed?According to the article it is avarice, but it is also ambition, it is having lots of possessions and it is “taking more than our fair share” (whatever that means), and it also means whatever the jurno thinks fit.
Articles in a newspaper have one single solitary purpuse, and it is: sell the paper.
The jurno on $30k a year part time, knows that greed is a magic word that grabs people’s attention, particularly people who go through life looking with eagel eye for yet another excuse to justify their lack lustre performance in life.
Such effort, deserving of a better cause, does not mean much at all, only that words like greed have been overused and its real meaning lost, worn away by misuse, lumped now with new values and distorted meanings to suit yet another jurno looking to place a post.May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcOriginally posted by waprincess:Okay so we know that some baby boomers will be looking for lifestyle and some investors believe that they’ll be able to cash in on that. But how do all of the retirement villages that have been popping up up and down the coast here in WA fit into this.
In my neighbourhood you can’t buy a decent house for under $600K but just around the corner a retiree can buy a villa in a retirement complex for under $200k some of them have views.
And last time I checked none of these places were available to people under 55’s or non-retirees to buy. What if more of these places spring up?P
I don’t know if you are aware that such places in retirement villages don’t sell for $200k they require a bond of $200 to allow one to move in, and the owners will deduct from such bond ridiculously high costs, in the order of 20 or 30k, for each year one is able to give death a miss, until one goes and the property is vacant and someone else drops another $200k. You can hardly compare a Torrens title with such elaborate method of pulling the rug under the elderly and depriving them from their family home.
I looked into building retirement villages but found the industry so repugnant that I decided to develop an invention in stead. More satisfaction and no guilt.
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcOriginally posted by aussierogue:‘i say bring in a flat rate personal income tax’…
Marc (or should i say Mr Burns) – another balanced pearl of wisdom…keep up the interesting work.
My dearest Aussie, my point is this:
Land tax is supposed to tax…well LAND.So, If I own a property that is valued by the Jolly Men In The Forest at say $180,000, I will pay $720 a year.
Yet if it is you that owns the same property (and you happen to pass through the same forest), because your suit looks expensive, your carriage is well adorned and you have a few servants with you, meaning you have a bunch of properties, you would pay for that same property valued at the same $180k substantially MORE than I do. IN FACT AS MUCH AS MORE THAN 3 TIMES MORE!! = $2520 PER YEAR as a punishment for your success.So this besides being a robbery is a PERSONAL TAX and not land tax, since it depends on the PERSON that holds the property and not the land it pretends to tax.
The NSW government shows once more pathetic hypocrisy and makes the few successful pay for the less successful. Fair you say? Your opinion.
I say, let’s ALL pay land tax, on ALL properties, and we would probably only need to pay 0.1 or 0.2 cents per dollar value to achieve the same fiscal result.
But no! it must be the BAD “rich” who must cough up. After all they are the one extorting rent out of the poor tenants.
Since such is the philosophy behind any stepped taxation system, I add: let’s bring in flat rate personal tax. If that would be the case we would probably only need to pay 10 or 15% of ALL income, from $100 up, it would be fair, it would be an incentive to earn more, it would be an incentive to get off welfare, it would be a reward for success.To equate this to the image of Mr Burns, the Scrooge in the Homer Simpson cartoon, is a classic anti-value, where success is bad and poverty is a virtue, but I am sure you read that before.
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcOriginally posted by wayneL:Hehe, I knew that’d wind you up.
Wayne, so are you going to put the rent up, of are you going to be a good Samaritan?
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcOriginally posted by showmethemoney:All
Landtax what a rip off! This year our land tax bill reached over $10,000. This is due to the exponential increase in rate as the number and hence aggregate value of all properties held increases.
We cannot afford to hold any longer and so are forced to sell down. Sure the capital values have increased but the cashflow does not support this sort of financial impost.
Passing this cost onto tenants is a nice idea but not practical. The rents would need to rise about 25%!
If there really has to be a Land Tax then I believe it should be levied on a property by property basis, not aggregate value. I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that one.
Sometimes I think the government would prefer that we don’t provide for our own retirement.SMTM
This is another example of Robin Hood in action. Rob the “rich”to pretend to help the “poor”.
Land tax should depened on the property taxed and not on who owns it, that is robbery.
I say bring in a flat rate personal income tax whit no threshold.May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcBut I’m wondering why you would not be satisfied with the ludicrous leveraged capital gains and favourable tax treatment of your investments.
Perhaps you fail to see property investment as for what it is, a business, like 95% of the rest of investors who are amateurs, and buy a second property for tax purposes.
Any other business would be up in arms if a new tax as this would be thrown at them regardless of how profitable they are.
The purpose of any business, as universally accepted, is making money. Not so property investing, where the owner apparently should be content with the “exorbitant” price increases engineered by property investors who plot between dusk and dawn specifically to make the poor first home buyer suffer. (This explains why the government rushes to distort the market with first home buyers grants).
Plus, as we all know, property investors are filthy rich people who don’t have anything better to do than squeeze the poor tenant out of his hard earned dollars whilst relaxing on their yacht decks smoking Cuban cigars.Because the Government has targeted you for some easy tax dollars to fund worthy programs you seek to transfer that insignificant pain to your tenants, for who(m?) the pain may be more significant…most unchristian of you!
You throw around a few concepts here, in an attempt at humour. What you perhaps do not know is that humour usually is an escape valve of our subconscious to say what we really think but are afraid to say seriously. In other words what you joke about is usually what you really think.
The government has targeted property investors because they are percieved as a soft target, sheep, amateurs, in their vast majority easy target and will not react because most think they are doing fantastic with capital gain. They are not united and are usually ill advised by their agents.
The causes supported by the NSW government are more often then not, not worthy of spending my money on, whilst essential infrastructure is neglected. Example Hospitals where share responsibility with the federal government makes it a no go zone. Any improvement may be counted as the opposition’s win so let it die. Better spend it on building a park whilst releasing land for 100,000 further homes in the south west where roads and public transport don’t exist.Your definition of land tax as insignificant for the owner and very significant for the tenant only shows how far removed from a business approach your mind is. If peanuts price increases by 10c and the Marsbars price goes up for that reason, no one would apply such logic that the owners of the Marsbar factory are rich enough to keep the price down and not hurting the poor kid that must come up with 10c more.
As far as Christianity being incompatible with good business practice, that is another fallacy. This distorted ideas usually accompanied by bible snippets, stem from people who usually have no affiliation with Christianity themselves but feel the target of criticism when Christian principles are promoted, and find this the proper way to retaliate.
Does not deserve a longer answer really.May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcOriginally posted by wayneL:What if the market will not tolerate a rent increase?
Ya know? Supply and demand?Ignoring the sarcasm…[baaa]…….It is my opinion that the rental market, as it is dominated by a vast majority of landlords that only hold one property, it is far too sheepish to take aggressive action to protect the income level necessary to keep investments viable.
RE agents also discourage rent increases, on the reasoning that a rent increase may force a tenant out and leave the property vacant for some weeks, and such loss may need a year to be recovered.
What the investor and his agent seem to miss all the time is that undervaluing the properties’ rent value, undervalues the property. It is that simple. Of course each case must be judged on it’s merits and there are special circumstance but in general think what sells better: Brick veneer 3 bed. cottage, rent $250 per week…..or…. Brick veneer 3 bed. cottage, rent $190 per week ?
I had tenants blackmailing the RE agent for $5 rent increase. I say invariably, let them go! I rather lose a few weeks rent and have a property with a higher rent tag, then a lower one and a tenant that is unhappy, plus I feel I make a small contribution to restore the market value. After all if an investment cannot make what it would in a term deposit, we are talking about a real lousy investment.
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcOriginally posted by Junkers:I just recently received this email from my accountant explaining the land tax.
Hope this is of some help to anyone confused about the land tax payable on their investment properties.It is essentially a tax on the value of land held as at 31 December each year
The office of state revenue determine the value of land for assessment purposes based upon council valuations and any land owner has a right to objection if they feel the valuation is incorrect
The land that is part of the home you live in – your principal residence – is generally exempt from land tax
The exception to this exemption is if your land value is $1.970million or more (2004 figures)
Please note that should you ever be in a position where your principal residence is subject to land tax then this property is assessed separately to any other property that you may hold (on own or jointly) at that time
If land held with an investment property and the value of the land is less that $316,999 (for 2004) then there is no land tax liability – remember it is the land value and not the market value of the whole property you look at
If land held with an investment property is valued at more than $316,999 (for 2004) then land tax is payable at $100 plus 1.7% of the excess over $317,000
I have quoted the NSW land tax rates for you above. Land tax is a state tax therefore should you buy a property and land in any other state of Australia a different threshold and rate will apply ( more information to digest should you invest interstate!)
Cheers!The above is wrong or outdated information
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcLand tax is calculated on the combined value of all taxable land, owned.
Less than 400k = 0.4 cent for each dollar EVERY YEAR
Less than 500k = $1600 PLUS 0.6c per dollar above 400k
More than $500k = $2200 + 1.4 cent above $500kOf course the form says that you can “claim for an exemption for your own home” (how generous) and Mr Carr may just grace you with a “concession”. Thank you Milord, can I have a senior’s card with that?
Of course if you are as filthy as I am and happen to have a better than 3 bed brick venieer in the western suburbs, you are up for land tax on your own home as well. Cheers!
A clear case of a Robin Hood comunist governemt robbing the successful to give to … who was the last one? Papua?
Steve, I REALY need a puking smilie here…..$10 increase per property may just cover the cost of this latest robbery.
Happy Christmas.
[angry2]
MarcOf course you could try the Seinfield approach:
– Look, I am in the middle of something, could you give me your home phone so that I can call you at your home later?
– No I don’t give my home phone out, I dont get business calls at home.
– Ah you don’t? Now you know how I feel!!
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcI know the terms “lineal” income the one you get by exchanging hours for dollar, and “residual “income, the one that comes from investment or royalties that is independent from what you do.
Passive I supose refers to residual and active to lineal.I am pursuing activley residual income, in order to make passive my lineal income…[biggrin]
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcI had no loss since the bond covered it, yet if anything else would need repair, there would be no bond left and I would have to claim to the insurance.
I have a comprehensive landlord insurance with CGU and found out that the damage by animals that the policy covers is from “other” animals like the next door neighbour’s pet, but NOT my tenant’s pet, NRMA is the same, yet they have re-written the landlord policy and the details of the policy will be available tomorrow according to the bush telegraph so that may change tomorrow.So landlord beware, your tenant’s pet’s damage, is not covered by your insurance policy. Of course I could argue that the lawn died from lack of water, since in fact the dog’s feet compact the soil so tied that the water does not penetrate and the plant dies. Err, well I could try
If any of you has properties in the US can you confirm what a friend says that “in the US” it is common practice to charge a non refundable bond for each pet?
Originally posted by resiwealth:Thread title: “Get Rich Quickly or Get Rich Slowly”
Some people get to where they want to be earlier than others so why is that do you think. I mean some are lucky through good timing – some are born into it – some do it accidently – some follow a regimented set of strategies etc etc
Some make it big then 5 years later we hear they lost it for whatever reason, i’m not talking about getting rich over night, but if there was a way you could shorten the journey say from 20 down to 10 or 15 years …[hmm]
Resi, Resi, it ws you that posted the above, entitled Get rich quickly or slowly, others did mention “get rich slow”, so it is only natural to mention get rich quick. The difference between quick and quickly is semantic at best.
I note nevertheless that you avoid such word quick with extreme prejudice and even illustrate your dislike of get rich quick by saying of ‘some’ who after succeeding in 5 years lose it all.
This makes for a debate all on its own.
“Get rich quick schemes” is a catchcry phrase like “Pyramid scheme” or “Conspiracy theory”
used to discredit in a preemptive strike something we want out of the way.Such sentence appeals to values that are universal, yet not necessarily true, that slow is better than fast, “easy come easy go” “rich are stingy” and all those popular wisdom little things, that cling to our brain like a bad smell.
The fact of the matter is that scam do exist and so do scam artists, but any person with average intelligence can and must be prompted to research deals for their true worth, and not dismiss them as bad if they promise a lot quick and good if they promise little in a long time.
Three years ago we had an advertising campaign with fliers that promised “Earn 200,000 a year*”…*conditions apply.
The add was extremely well worded and explained how an average person could in the term of 3 to 5 years turn over such income per year.The ACCC pulled us over and demanded we stopped this “claims”. In the mind of some small minded person on a salary, this figure was a fallacy and an obvious scam , a “get rich quick scheme”.
However it took only a few in our group to show them that this was reality for many who in fact had achieved far higher income with a couple well in the 1.5 million a year, based on the simple principles offered. We continued with the campaign for a year after that.
The reality of our income is that we get paid according to how much value we deliver according to the market. If we deliver massive amounts of value and such value has demand we will receive massive amounts of wealth. The speed at which we are rewarded has relation only to the value we give and if we get rewarded in small dribs and drabs, that does not make our position any stronger just because of that.
The fact that the less attractive deals carry a lesser risk and are therefore safer to tackle without proper research does not devalue the high risk deals who demand a thorough research before attempting them. In other word, I someone wants to jump into a deal head on and take the risk of no research, you may as well jump into a may get rich one day slow scheme, rather than a get rich quick, but be aware of why this is so.
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcI like LifeX answer and some of the others too.
I personally think that “get rich quick” has got a bad rap, and that one must be able to discriminate from “get conned quick” plans.
Providing you do your homework and ask the RIGHT people, I think that the worst you can do is ask your neighbor or his financial adviser for an opinion on something they are ill prepared to comment on.
You are likely to get a touchy feely sensible answer full of measured word with calculated risks and a disclaimer at the end that are likely to keep you as poor as you were before asking but now oh so much wiser. NOT.Just like working hard does not work on it’s own, get rich slow does not work on it’s own.
Prosperity is a cunning lady that likes to be unpredictable, likes to challenge common sense and loves lateral thinkers. Properties are not different and anyone who bought properties in Sydney inner city before 1987 or at least before 1992, or in Redfern two years ago can testify that common sense did not make them buy there rather good old gut feeling and love for one of those challenge that keep you going to the toilet more often than you would if cruising along “slow”.
Oh yes… “if you get rich quick you lose it all quick”!! .. and if you go fast you may kill yourself!! and what if you run out of petrol or you slip on a banana peel??[baaa]
Life is to be lived and years go by at the same speed if you sip on a diet coke at Macdonald’s or sip on a 100 year old cognac in front of a fireplace in a cabin on your lake front property.
I know which one I choose.
My advice, get rich quick by thinking BIG
PS
“Conventional wisdom doesn’t work…and never did.”
“If you are going to work hard anyway, you may as well get rich…and the quicker the better.”
T.Harv EkerMay God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcAll of the above plus:
Say you borrow money from the bank to buy your property. Say you borrow a lot of money. Say you borrowed 95%
And there is a drop in prices of 15%.Your property is now worth 85% of the original value paid, yet you owe the bank 95%.
If you think that is not a problem, think again.
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcOriginally posted by Gramyre:… a Search and FAQ exercise rolled into the registration process.
“Use the search fucnction to find how many results when the word Masterclass is used” The exercise is coded to count how man results pop up (dynamic) and bob’s your uncle…That assumes that people don’t use the search facility because they don’t know how to.
Reality is a bit different.a)People join a forum to interact with others not just to find and answer written down.
b) the search facility does not always work like we would like it to.
c) You cannot tell the search facility your story and expect it to respond.The principle to apply here is to give in order to recieve, and many people in this forum are well aware of this and are generous with their knowledge with the others, knowing they will be rewarded in the great scheme of things.
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcHi resi. I see your point, but imagine what would this site be without questions… repetitive questions.
Deserted comes to mind.Questions as much as they seem all the same, are the product of a unique person that is in the market with a purpose. In other words, questions are a barometer of the market and reading them gives us a rare insight of how people read the market.
The answers to all those questions are also a great indicator since they usually come from more experienced people who will disclose how they themselves read the market indicators, yet another useful tell tale.
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcOriginally posted by aussierogue:marc – you are ranting. fraud is better than genocide…
we have a lot to answer for
cheers
Aussie, you surprise me. At times your answers are balanced other times you become part of the good citizen with the rope.
This debate is of a sensitive nature and must be tackled as an intellectual exercise checking emotions at the door.
Fact one, racism exist.
Fact two, it is much more evident in groups who have racism as a part of their culture and that see nothing wrong in it.
Fact three, western countries despite such blatant reverse racism from minorities towards the majority, still go to great length (conceded sometimes not enough) to reduce the incidence of racism from westerners towards foreigners.
My point is that in Australia despite being the target of racism ourselves, we are at the forefront of combating racism.
Comments about “genocide” are distasteful because they leave too many allegations open that you would probably not want to discuss with me in a public forum … nor privately for that matter.
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
MarcHi Rose, I have a NM business.
From what you tell, you are now with two different companies, and companies that have competing products. That could be a problem, I don’t know anyone who was able to grow 2 network successfully. You may need to make a choice.As far as negative comments, you should know by now that the only comments you should listen are from the people that are actively and successfully making a great living in the activity you are interested in.
If you are interested in Golf ask a Golf expert, if in music, a musician ( not his next door neighbour}, and if in NM someone in your organisation that is high up and willing to share his experience. Your problem may be who to ask if Herbalife expert that wants you out of Usana or Usana expert that wants you out of Herbalife.If I where you I would look at the compensation system and work out which one is easier to build successfully. Usana has a binary system where people work as a team. That would be my choice, unless you are a sponsor monster and work best on your own.
May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
Marc
