Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

We mean business
Contact us today to get results

Humourless Liberals and Property Owners squeal

By johnboy - 18 March 2005 19

Tories across the city are up in arms over comments made by Treasurer Quinlan
that “the Government would squeeze property owners until they bleed, but not until they were dead.”. Member for Yarralumla, Richard Mulcahy, described the comments as a kick in the teeth of property owners and went on to attack a “lack of sympathy for property owners”. Oh poor property owners, forced to maybe sell one of their properties by the government’s policies to a first time home buyer.

ABC Online reported the Property Council’s shrill cries for such a nasty man to resign.

While a firm believer in strong property rights, I can’t honestly think of a better group in society to target than property speculators myself.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
19 Responses to
Humourless Liberals and Property Owners squeal
Grail 11:07 am 22 May 12

vg said :

so target a group just because they’ve had the temerity to save or manage themselves well financially?

The catch with property investment is that you are directly competing with people who need a house to live in, and you are given much better buying power than home buyers since you (a) get to depreciate all the capital, (b) get to claim interest on the mortgage as a deduction against income, and (c) have someone else helping pay off your mortgage.

Imagine if you had to buy your water from ACTEW, and were competing with people who wanted to resell that water later?

Grail 11:03 am 22 May 12

The “described the comments” link is broken. Either you transcribed the link incorrectly, or the Liberals have excised the article from their corporate memory.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 10:18 am 22 May 12

Well, I guess this came to naught.

milkman 6:13 pm 07 Aug 11

johnboy said :

in preference to targeting people investing in busineses? or targeting people who don’t have any money?

Seems sensible to me.

I don’t think property owners should be shouldering all the burden, but there’s a reason they’ve traditonally been asked to bear the lions share of local government funding.

plus it’s a rare sector of the economy where a collapse in investment has upsides (cheaper houses for people who don’t already have one).

So, JB, bought a house yet? Are you in the market at all?

arse 4:33 pm 23 Mar 05

I dont think property owners should be afflicted with further financial pain, but real pain.
squeeze them til they bleed actual blood, (could give it to the red cross?) and collect their teeth for subsidised dentures, (which they can then purchase on some kind of rebate scheme) after actually kicking them in.
sorry – just glanced at the ‘get real’ estate section on the weekend

vg 12:58 pm 22 Mar 05

and have that business go belly up so you and the employees lose their jobs. no thanks

Ralph 9:47 am 22 Mar 05

He means that property makes a one-off contribution to GDP. Yes builders get paid, but beyond that it doesn’t produce goods and services (like factories do) that can be exported. A better investment is to start a business and employ some people.

vg 9:54 pm 21 Mar 05

I make plenty on the stock market as well, I cant see your point. Yes Ted made a joke, but another very stupid one. Sure there is unnecessary hoo-ha but for God’s sake, can we get through 1 week in the ACT without one of these amateurs doing something stupid?

I am at a bit of a loss how investing in local property does nothing for the local economy. I mean it is all those local builders and suppliers that get paid isnt it? Last I looked we weren;t flying them in from a 3rd world backwater. What better way of investing locally directly than by buying a local house

johnboy 10:07 pm 20 Mar 05

fantastic return on investment for you does not mean the money is doing for the national economy what it could be doing in a local stock exchange (if there were any decent investments to be had there, see earlier comments on government policies).

Similarly it’s a crying shame if real estates and off-shore investments are the only options.

that’s real failure of policy.

vg 6:44 pm 20 Mar 05

yes, i could invest my money off-shore, which has no benefit whatsoever to the local building industry or the people that support it.

its a fantastic use of capital, when used intelligently, as in the long term it ALWAYS goes up. I bought a place for $104K in 1997 and sold it last year for $280K. i hardly call that a ‘poor use’ of capital. essentially house wise I am now set for the rest of my life because of the use of equity.

the government also encourages forms of investment in full or partly franked dividends. everyone can get into that.

too many people too lazy to get off their collective arses and make something of their lives are supported by the people who have. call me a blatant capitalist, but when you and yours work hard for their money, then why not maximise its value

johnboy 1:15 pm 20 Mar 05

Dude it’s not about “Rodney Rich Pigs”

It’s about someone has to pay, I’ve asked you to suggest more worthy areas of revenue raising.

There’s also the issue that poor government policy (at local, state, and federal levels) has made real-estate the best investment possible in this country. which is a problem because it’s not a terribly good use of capital when you look at the bigger picture.

There are many other places and things you could be investing in, and if government policy encourages people to do it elsewhere (and in the process makes it easier for other people to get into the amrket to buy their OWN home, rather than rent from you and all the others like you) then I think that’s a good thing.

but the basic point is this; ted quinlan made a joke. Raising this whoo-haa around it distracts attention from more serious issues.

vg 1:02 pm 20 Mar 05

not all property speculators are the rodney rich pigs you so despise. some do it for reasons like planning for their retirement so as they are sulf-funded and not a burden on the welfare system.

i have worked damn hard to earn my money, if i wish to speculate the fruit of those toils. then again if we follow the standards proposed by the Stanhope junta mediocrity is encouraged and the lefty ways of quinlan et al will become policy

johnboy 10:13 am 20 Mar 05

in preference to targeting people investing in busineses? or targeting people who don’t have any money?

Seems sensible to me.

I don’t think property owners should be shouldering all the burden, but there’s a reason they’ve traditonally been asked to bear the lions share of local government funding.

plus it’s a rare sector of the economy where a collapse in investment has upsides (cheaper houses for people who don’t already have one).

vg 9:47 am 20 Mar 05

so target a group just because they’ve had the temerity to save or manage themselves well financially?

johnboy 1:03 am 19 Mar 05

ABC Online have more on this with Ted Quinlan (can you feel the tired exasperation in his voice even in this medium?) explaining the concept of humour to the baying plutocrats.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site