Forum Replies Created
Hi
Thanks for your response.
Regarding the depreciation being a cost, I understand your comment, I am just curious as to what other people think on this… the value of the property is less on paper but in reality it is not and this depreciation is a good thing as it is an additional tax deduction – and as mentioned in my case this is helping to turn a negative geared property cashflow positive after tax.
Comments anyone???
Also, I noticed that the word purchase is spelt incorrectly on the 11 second calculator (the 2nd purchase on the right hand side).
Cheers
RickHi Dazzling
Thanks for the comments. If you don’t mind, could you please elaborate on your comment regarding “if you are the highest earner – to place the property in any ratio other than 100% in your name only. 99/1 is OK, 98/2 is OK etc…’tenants in common’.”
Thanks a ton
Regards
RudyOriginally posted by Dazzling:Rudy,
G’day and welcome to the forum.
I would recommend you have a look at the properties as an entity….what you have there is the classic ‘cordial mix’ that the SS Qld lady often refers to…have a read of some of her books.
Unless the new +CF is outrageously positive, the overall net effect of all of the properties will still be a loss.
Over-riding all of this, I’d be far more concerned about the large Land Tax burden you are setting yourself up for with all the others in your name only. (See separate thread on this subject).
The small positive cashflows will be absolutely swamped by the extra burdens imposed by your State’s revenue office. For this reason alone, I would humbly suggest – if you are the highest earner – to place the property in any ratio other than 100% in your name only. 99/1 is OK, 98/2 is OK etc…’tenants in common’.
On the same theme, I’d also have a serious look at how much you pay for Land Tax vs stamp duty to switch them over to a better % structure.
Make sense ??
Cheers,
Dazzling
“Go hard or go home”
