Do people want to be rich or wealthy? Chris Rock talks about being 'wealthy' – as opposed to rich – as being able to pass down wealth to future generations.

His quote: "Shaq is rich. The white man who signs his cheques is wealthy!".

Hi Free,

Rules vary in each state, but the landlord is well within their rights to increase the rent every 6 months here in South Australia, even if a longer term tenancy is in place. I think this is different in other states. Month to month tenancies are also treated differently in other states.

To answer your questions.

1) I would guess the clause wouldn't work. The landlord is offering the use ofthe property to you, under his/her terms. It's up to you if you accept them or not. If you don't, then generally you can either, a) find another property, or b) negotiate. Some LL's are more likely to negotiate than others.
2) Ask other tenants in the buiding, check what similar properties in the area are going for on real estate websites.
3) I would assume the landlord is well within their rights to increase the rent. 
4) Maybe, it's hard to know hearing only one side of the story.
5) There is no harm in asking. I would if I was you.

It sounds likethe problem may be the agent, more than the landlord (from waht you've said). When my wife and I were renting, we had a small issue that required the agent's attention and we could not get him on the phone. My wife, who is a determined type when she gets a bee in her bonnet, rang the agent CONSTANTLY until we got some action. Sometimes the squeeky wheel gets the grease, and if you are calling about genuine concerns (like a new lease or leaking roof) then the agent should bring this to the LL's attention.

The advantage for you with being on a month to month lease is that you are free to look for another property to rent. Maybe that is another option you could pursue. 

The issue here is the seller holds all the cards. You can ask for all sorts of conditions, but if the seller says no, then that's the end of it.

It is in your favour that the property has been on the market fora long time, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the vendor is anxious or desperate to sell. I'm not sure how desperate they would have to be to allow a 30 day due diligence period, and effectively hand control to the purchaser. Pretty desperate, I would think…

I understood the question to be that the OP was paying a builder to build the property, not buying a brand new, completed property from a developer.

My point was if they are paying a builder to build, they can claim GST if they are intending to develop and sell etc.

But you are right, if they have bought a completed new residential home, and the develop has used the margin scheme, then there is no claim for GST allowed.

Like Scott said, I'm not sure why you need so long to do your inspections. Here in SA we only get 2 days cooling off!

If I was the vendor, there is no way I would grant a 30 day due diligence period. The vendor would be essentially turning away other prospective buyers while you did your due diligence. If, at the end of your 30 days you decide not to proceed, the vendor is back to square one and has wasted a month.

Council checks and title searches have to be handed over before cooling off is entered into here in South Australia. I'm not sure of the procedures in other states. So if you don't like what yoiu see in the searches, you can always cool off under normal terms.  

Great first post Andy, plugging your own website without adding anything to the conversation. (Please note the sarcasm).

Please forgive me if I won't be clicking on your link. The thought of reading about the 'impending property crash', from some anonymous blogger with no discernable credentials makes me so nervous that I won't be able to sleep at night. I'll just keep my head in the sand, if that's ok with you.

By the way, this 'impending crash' has been impending now for at least three years. Any chance you may be able to narrow down the date for me, so I can sell up and get some sleep?

It's not that simple. Interest deductibility is determined by the use of the funds. In the transaction of the trust LOC paying your PPOR interest, it MAY be deductible, depending on whether the trust owes you money or not.

We have set up loans for clients in the past, where the trust / company owes the individual money. This interest is deductible, as the company is borrowing to repay a shareholder / director loan.

But it depends on whether the trust owes you money or not. Most times in the smaller PSI type businesses run through trusts, the individual owes the trust, not the other way around. This is something your financial planner would not know, unless they have seen your financial accounts.

As others have said, be careful when taking tax advice from financial planners. And if your financial planner is charging for this tax advice, they could be breaking the law.

Sorry, I have misinterpreted what you are trying to do.

The original loan will be tax deductible still, as it retains it's original purpose. It's only the new borrowings that would not be deductible. I thought you wanted to have the new loan tax deductible.

The best way to do this would be to get a separate loan with the current PPOR as security. This way the current loan is untouched and unaffected, and the new loan is totally for private use.

Hi Natalie,

No, the interest would not be deductible, as the purpose of the borrowing determines deductibility. The purpose in this case would be to buy a new PPOR.

The flip side Jac is that the sale of your current PPOR will be tax free. You can then use the cash from the sale to reduce your non-deductible debt.

The offset account is a beautiful thing, though.