Forum Replies Created
- Originally posted by JetDollars:
You will do better if you ignore all the politician…just don’w vote for any of them…whoever win the next election…who care…
Kind regards
Jet Dollars
I agree completely with Kay…
No political system is perfect.. whether its a democracy, a republic, an aristocracy or a monarchy…
But once you remove yourself from the voting system, you give up all right to criticise the people voted in by those who had the diligence to step up to the plate and have their say.
Sizzling duck makes a good point – the “johnhowardlies” website is not just a site – its a propaganda tool of the ALP… you dont think if Labor were in Govt there would be a similar tool being utilised by the Coalition?
My perspective of the impending Federal Election is much the same as Aceys… weigh up what each candidate has to say on the issues YOU deem to be important, whether it be health, education, the environment, investment, whatever … then decide which of the two major parties you believe have the better chance of attaining those lofty goals you place upon them as a registered voter [biggrin]
It is by no means easy, and there is NO right answer… but, in my opinion, once you decide to stand on the sideline, you give up all right to criticise.
Best wishes,
Jay.
Sorry Calron – youre saying you turn things into gold?
That would make you an Alchemist, wouldnt it? What on Earth is Alcamie?
Hi hotshot,
I think you better check your data – according to the ABS, the population of Broken Hill in 1996 was 21,356, not 3,528.
This link here: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/d148686192eae2cdca2568320082d4b4/4ca4cebd3aace8fbca2568b200194405!OpenDocument should help you out.
Jay
Hi kp,
The report is correct. The 12 month CGT concession is not available for trusts, but rather only what the ATO calls “natural persons” ie individuals.
Jay
EDIT: My apologies kp, I didnt read the question properly and was mixing up your issue with another [angry2]. Here is the relevant info:
What is the CGT discount?
You may be eligible for a CGT discount if:you are an individual, a trust or a complying superannuation fund
a CGT event happens in relation to an asset that you own
the CGT event happens after 11.45 am on 21 September 1999
you acquired the asset at least 12 months before the CGT event, and
you (or others) have not chosen to use the indexation method.
If all of the above apply, you can reduce the capital gain that you have made (after subtracting any capital losses) by the discount percentage that applies to you. The discount percentage for individuals and trusts is 50%, while the percentage for complying superannuation funds is 33 1/3%.My apologies for pointing you in the wrong direction
Jay
Hi Lucifer,
The ATO arent “going after trusts”..
They are going after bankrupts. Do you think you should personally be able to claim bankruptcy, potentially owing other people millions of dollars, yet still be able to protect your own multi million dollar portfolio?
I thought the idea worked both ways – in order to secure your financial future you should be subject to the same laws you may one day seek refuge under…
Secondly, this is merely a proposal – its nowhere even close to being a law…
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15976
My understanding is that this proposal is designed to seek fair and just compensation from those that attempt to hide their assets when claiming bankruptcy.. it is not an attempt to circumvent the legitimate use of trusts as a means of asset protection, wealth creation and distribution of profits to beneficiaries for property investors.
“Under these changes, the trustee in bankruptcy will be able to recover assets held in the
name of the bankrupt’s spouse, or that of another party, where the bankrupt has paid for and
uses the asset,” Mr Ruddock said.“These changes will mean that high income earners who become bankrupt won’t be able to
rely on financial arrangements designed to shield assets from creditors.”Dont go bankrupt, and youll be fine [biggrin]
Jay.
EDIT: Sorry, this was 25 seconds behind Celivia [blink]
Originally posted by Myydral:Well done almost all are answered. As far as I can tell, only 5 & 13 remain.
5 – 66 B of the B
13 – 32 is the T in D F at which W FIf somebody has already answered these, sorry I missed them.
“Looking forward to the day when I can tell the boss where to go”
Not sure if they have but Ill do it here [biggrin]
66 books of the bible
32 is the Temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit that Water Freezes
Jay.
Celivia is right with the provinces [biggrin]
The only 2 left are:
28: 23 Pairs of Chromosomes in the Human Body
and
33: 6 Balls to an Over in Cricket.
Jay.
Originally posted by Celivia:9 p ( another word for state I guess) in South Africa
Provincies perhaps, Simon?Check out number 22, I made that answer up for fun.
Just testing ya!
Anyone know the right answer?
Hehe![biggrin]27 books in the New Testament
OK.
The reason I ask is that each state has different stamp duty and land tax levies. Some states have altered both, some changed one or the other, and some have yet to make changes to either.
The best thing I can suggest doing is looking at
the Office of State Revenue website for each state and compiling an overview of specific changes for each state to present in your seminar.Best wishes,
Jay.
In which state?
Originally posted by westan:And the idea of a Job (yuk, why prostitute yourself in working for someone who will tell you what to do all day,start your own business).
regards westanHi westan,
Can I ask how old you are?
I noticed in a previous post you only just stopped working for a boss this year…
I guess hindsight is always 20/20 [blush2]
Best wishes,
Jay
Hi Bionic,
The easiest way to access this data without paying for it is to contact a local real estate agent. Approach them with the notion that you are looking to buy in the area/street, and youd like an overview of property sales over the past X years. NSW agents have access to RPData listings of registered property sales dating back to 1930 – and the majoirty are only too happy to oblige a prospective customer.
Just dont ask the agent selling the property
Jay.
Originally posted by Nat R:You can not claim back the LMI ..where do you guys get such incorrect information.
Its a bit like saying if you don’t have a crash or claim on your car insurance by the end of the year you can have your premium back.
LMI is not collected by the bank, it goes to an insurance company upfront who then cover the bank if there is a loss on your property for the ife of your loan. The lender is not in a position to refund squat.
Please don’t make untrue statements and represent them as fact…somebody may take you serioulsy and base a decesion on your incorrect advice.
Hi Nat R,
Id suggest you heed your own advice before levelling wayward missives at people who DO know what they are talking about. Yesterday I received a partial LMI refund from GE, for a property I financed towards the end of last year. The refund amount was just over $610. It was because of the advice of people like those in this thread that I was able to receive the refund – if I had listened to yourself the money would still be in the hands of the LMI provider.
If you are eligible, there is a very good chance of getting a partial refund – if you never ask there is a 100% chance of getting NOTHING.
I know which I prefer.
Best wishes,
Jay.
Originally posted by motivated:Hi all, I am looking for a good and pro-active Broker that servies the Central Coast. Please let me know if you know of one.
Thanks.
Hi motivated,
Ive used Simon from Mortgage Hunter a couple of times now and have only great things to say. He is based in Newcastle but has clients all up and down the east coast, including the Central Coast. He is also a property investor himself, and freely gives of his time on this forum.
Website is: http://www.mortgagehunter.com.au
Best wishes,
Jay.
Hi Marc,
I personally have no hesitation in recommending forum moderator and broker Simon Macks (Mortgage Hunter).
I have used him in the past with no hassles whatsoever, am using him right at the moment, and plan to use his services a number of times in the future. I am aware that a number of members of the forum have used him and I am yet to hear a bad word. He actively liases with lenders, is available at any time of the day and night, and never fails to return a call.
His website is: http://www.mortgagehunter.com.au
All the best,
Jay.
Originally posted by Julia:JARRN,
FHOG Basics: The grant is for $7,000 whether you are building or buying an established home. To qualify you must not have owned a home before in Australia.HI Julia,
If you are going to offer advice with such fervour and confidence Id advise checking your facts first…
Your assertion that “To qualify you must not have owned a home before in Australia” is simply wrong. You can still have owned a property after July 2000 and claim the FHOG if you have never resided in it… FHOG rules prevent those who have owned a PPOR since that date from claiming the Grant. There a number of threads on the forum where you can better educate yourself on this matter.
The link Simon provided is spot on for detail, and includes all the details necessary to make an informed decision.
My personal advice is to check your facts before you offer erroneous advice to others.
Best wishes,
Jay.
PS The FHOG in QLD is $10,000 for new properties and $7000 for established ones.
Hi torachan,
Youre theory is inherently flawed for one reason (and, having read Jan Somers’ book, you should know this)…
You said “if every owner occupier bought an investment property” the points you mentioned would arise…
Accrording to ABS stats, between 6.5% (late 90’s) and 11.5% (late 2003) of people own an investment property… your logic was based on 70% of people owning an investment property ..
(Australian home ownership rate is 69%, and you based your reasoning on 100% of them owning an investment property…)
Instead of 70% of people owning an investment property, the number is closer to 10%…
Hence, the pool of potential renters is approximately 7 times what you thought it to be…
Can you see now that there are actually plenty of tenants for property investors?
Best wishes on your journey,
Jay
Steve, Im wondering why you seem incensed at “biased” reporting when you seem to want to create your own meanings for well established words…
In any dictionary in the world, a millionaire has assets with a net value of over one million dollars.
But in your dictionary, someone with 50 thousand dollars is a millionaire?
Im intrigued as to how you can find this congruous with the perception of yourself as a facilitator of wealth, when you appear to make up your own definitions to suit the outcome.
Jay
Edited after seeing reply from Zeffix above:
My point exactly! Your uncle is 50k+ in debt, but according Steves definition, he is a property millionaire. Can anyone reconcile this, not only with common perceptions of wealth, but also with common sense?
How can one be 50k in debt (assets minus debt
= -50k) and yet a millionaire?Hi Steve,
I have a problem with this. You make a sensational claim, then you change the meaning of the phrase you use to suit the purposes of your spiel.
For instance, if I said someone was a Stockmarket millionaire, would it be fair to say most poele would assume that their net worth was 1 million plus? If I claimed I was responsible for that fortune, would that not make people think I was capable of extraordinary mentoring?
If I took a poll of every property investing forum in Australia, whats the chance that the majority of respondants would say “Property Millionaire” meant somebody that was a MILLIONAIRE from PROPERTY… rather than someone who controls property yet has 30k odd in equity…
Isnt this simply changing the rules to suit your purpose?
Hi Kay,
I guess Im reading it a different way…
IMHO, Steve doesnt apologise for making a misleading comment – rather he apologises if people perceive what he said to mean something different from what he intended.
Im of the opinion that Steve knew full well that calling people “Property Millionaires” would imply that they were in fact millionaires from property.. when in fact he “intended” it to mean that, under whatever shared purchase structure, they could “control” one million dollars in property with basically no money of their own…
How is this any different from Henry Kaye’s claim to do the same?
Why is HK universally derided while Steve’s error was an honest mistake?
Will Steve give backs profits from book sales when people purchased his book in good faith, believing his claim that he can turn people into “property millionaires”?
I write this post in the best possible tone, and my apologies if that doesnt translate in the reading.. but why are we united in our stand against some “spruikers” and apologists for others?
Jay.
]
