Big Redd Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 Wow! Lots of different feelings now, you've left me slightly confused! I don't want to leave the landlord in a mess! I'm an honest person and I can see it from the landlords perspective too! But I too am making a substantial lose each week that I cannot recoup! So I'm seeking the right thing to do.....so if I give notice now, will they be able to make us homeless in a couple of weeks......I wanted to give lots of notice so they had time to start advertising. I understand I maybe liable to pay rent until lease ends but I was hoping that this won't be the case if they/we find someone to take over given the amount of notice we would be giving! :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Big Redd, if your conscience lets you then just walk away and let them keep the bond, you would need to drop a letter in the post on the day you fly out telling them you have vacated the property and that you sign the bond over to them. Personally as an investment home owner I would prefer you to do it like that than having a house wrecked and I have experienced both. Good luck with everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northshorepom Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 They pay tax on any profit made! there is a massive assumption that all landlords do not pay any tax because of negative gearing, this assumption is so wrong. It's still a massive concession that is easily used by MOST landlords who DO have other income they can offset loss against Lets take for example a retired person, they have say 4 un-mortgaged properties their income from these means that they do not qualify for government pension, it also makes them liable to income tax their only tax off sets are normal business running costs and personal allowances.In effect the Government is getting back (if any paid in the first place) any earlier NG benefits by not having to pay a pension and still receiving tax well after retirement. Then perhaps they should sell them, since for someone in that position it's not a very tax-efficient way of using their assets Let's be honest though: Most landlords are not retired, they have taxable income from other sources and therefore are able to use NG to their advantage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest241083 Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Please explain tink as I have landlords insurance! .............then you should of been able to claim so much lost rent... .............and so much for malicious damage.... .............it should say on your policy the amounts you can claim..... .............though in mothers experience her first policy was woefully inadequate..... .............something she has rectified since taking a substantial loss.... ..............her rentals are her only income...... ..............so it was a hard lesson..... ..............she now only does short lease agreements till she is happy with the tenant....and has an agreement for early vacation for tenant.... ..............works both ways as negates the problem faced by the OP.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Why not? Surely it's just a loss on the business that you can offset you cannot get back 100% of any loss by tax off sets and a loss can put you in debt and that debt has to be serviced. Things are not so black and white! mum & dad investors cannot always afford losses and people must stop thinking that every home investor is some sort of squillionaire business magnate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Redd Posted March 15, 2016 Author Share Posted March 15, 2016 Big Redd, if your conscience lets you then just walk away and let them keep the bond, you would need to drop a letter in the post on the day you fly out telling them you have vacated the property and that you sign the bond over to them.Personally as an investment home owner I would prefer you to do it like that than having a house wrecked and I have experienced both. Good luck with everything Thanks for your honesty Keith and Linda, we will have a think. Just for the record though we keep the house in an immaculate state as if it were our own. The landlord will have nothing to repair, it will ready to rent straight away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northshorepom Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 you cannot get back 100% of any loss by tax off sets and a loss can put you in debt and that debt has to be serviced. What sort of loss can you not offset? A business loss is a business loss, no? Loss of profit, now I understand. But that doesn't match up with the second part of your sentence Things are not so black and white! mum & dad investors cannot always afford losses and people must stop thinking that every home investor is some sort of squillionaire business magnate. Again, let's be honest: most property investors and those using NG to the max are not "mum and dad" investors Tax laws here give property investors here a way easier ride than almost anywhere else in the developed world, that's why there's so much of it going on. Are they unfairly treated leniently when set against the backdrop of fiscal tightening and tax increases for most others? It's a matter of opinion of course, but for me I have no doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 .............then you should of been able to claim so much lost rent................and so much for malicious damage.... .............it should say on your policy the amounts you can claim..... .............though in mothers experience her first policy was woefully inadequate..... .............something she has rectified since taking a substantial loss.... ..............her rentals are her only income...... ..............so it was a hard lesson..... ..............she now only does short lease agreements till she is happy with the tenant....and has an agreement for early vacation for tenant.... ..............works both ways as negates the problem faced by the OP.... Kids drawing on the wall is not classed as damage so is not covered that and a few other things that insurance will always try to get out of like if you have to patch a damaged wall they will only pay for the painting of that one wall and not the whole room. Insurance and tax off sets are not cover-alls, and your mothers experience (and mine) shows the points I am trying to get across to quite a few people that being a landlord is not a bed of roses and some risks are always present and if the rentals are your only source of income to live off then how does one live when having to pay for repairs and no rent income whilst repairs are carried out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 What sort of loss can you not offset? A business loss is a business loss, no? Loss of profit, now I understand. But that doesn't match up with the second part of your sentence Again, let's be honest: most property investors and those using NG to the max are not "mum and dad" investors Tax laws here give property investors here a way easier ride than almost anywhere else in the developed world, that's why there's so much of it going on. Are they unfairly treated leniently when set against the backdrop of fiscal tightening and tax increases for most others? It's a matter of opinion of course, but for me I have no doubt Say I have a $4000 damage bill to pay ( after insurance payout) please tell me exactly who is going to give me a full 100% $4000? if I have to borrow that $4000 then interest has to be paid on that borrowing. If my profit for the year would have been say $4000 (and this is my only source of income) then not only have I lost an income I am also in debt and hungry to boot! So at last you are starting to see that it is not all investors, though I think you are still guessing when you say "most". As I have said before like all rules and regulations there are some that will try to rort the system and some that abide, there is and always will be a need to tweak rules and regulations from time to time to stop the rorters, but you must stop tarring everybody with the same brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest241083 Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Kids drawing on the wall is not classed as damage so is not covered that and a few other things that insurance will always try to get out of like if you have to patch a damaged wall they will only pay for the painting of that one wall and not the whole room.Insurance and tax off sets are not cover-alls, and your mothers experience (and mine) shows the points I am trying to get across to quite a few people that being a landlord is not a bed of roses and some risks are always present and if the rentals are your only source of income to live off then how does one live when having to pay for repairs and no rent income whilst repairs are carried out? ..........I know the cost of repairs when claimed is rarely recouped...! .........and then the loss of no claim and higher premiums often another burden..... .........wen my father died at 58 my mother found she also has cancer...... ..........and her rentals being her only income now ....the loss meant she had to take out a loan secured against her own home... ...........a total refurb needed after bad tenants.......and insurance covering only a small amount.... ...........so I understand and agree with your point..... ...........and know of many other landlords whose losses in rental preoperty mean the difference in quality of living... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 ..........I know the cost of repairs when claimed is rarely recouped...!.........and then the loss of no claim and higher premiums often another burden..... .........wen my father died at 58 my mother found she also has cancer...... ..........and her rentals being her only income now ....the loss meant she had to take out a loan secured against her own home... ...........a total refurb needed after bad tenants.......and insurance covering only a small amount.... ...........so I understand and agree with your point..... ...........and know of many other landlords whose losses in rental preoperty mean the difference in quality of living... There are a lot of people out there that need to read this Tink, however there are some that sadly will not accept it in the belief that they (via the taxman) has assisted one in buying such property. I wish you and your Mother well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest241083 Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 There are a lot of people out there that need to read this Tink, however there are some that sadly will not accept it in the belief that they (via the taxman) has assisted one in buying such property.I wish you and your Mother well. .........thankyou........you live and learn.... .........OP you have to do what you think is morally right.... .........most landlords would rather know your circumstances and find a way round.... ..........a disgruntled tenant who looses any interest in the property.... ..........and sells the cooker on eBay to fund a midnight flit.....yes this happened... ...........or one that says the amount is unmanageable......is the better option... ...........sometimes some rent rather than no rent in a slow market is a benificial agreement to both.... ...........as in a mortgaged property......though banks first interest is often to themselves ime... ...........a default resulting in seizure of property.....and often the mortgagee left with nothing ...........as only the money owning is of importance.....many houses auctioned and bought for just this amount... ............declaring hardship can buy some time.... ...........a landlord as Keith and Linda has said........have no back up for defaulted payment and or damage....(other than insurance that can be inadequate) ...........renting property is often a gamble I know...... ............but landlords when supplying a decent home.....expect a fair response..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northshorepom Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 but you must stop tarring everybody with the same brush. I haven't tarred anyone with the same brush or changed my tune. It is a fact that the tax treatment of property investors here is much more generous than other comparable nations. It makes no difference if these people are "genuine" mum & dad investors (whatever that means), the tax treatment is still the same and I think it should be changed. I think it will be changed before too long too, against the backdrop of everyone else having to pay more (or receive less) it's the only fair course of action Having been a landlord in a much less generous jurisdiction I know the risks and pitfalls of property investment - actually I got rid of them because with the hassle they started to feel more of a liability than an asset - but that's no excuse for the system we have here, which rewards loading up with debt. I'd rather some of the capital that was being ploughed into buying existing properties and renting them out was redirected towards either new build - ie something that genuinely increases housing supply - or into business ventures that are more likely to grow the economy or incentivise productivity. It would be much better for the country as a whole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammygirl Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Not all investment properties are negatively geared. Many are bought to provide an income stream in retirement. They create a profit for the landlord which is taxed. Negative gearing only makes sense if you have a regular high income stream to pay the mortgage and then offset losses. After all you have to lose money to get a tax rebate, not all investors wish to lose money in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Not all investment properties are negatively geared. Many are bought to provide an income stream in retirement. They create a profit for the landlord which is taxed. Negative gearing only makes sense if you have a regular high income stream to pay the mortgage and then offset losses. After all you have to lose money to get a tax rebate, not all investors wish to lose money in the long term. You can use my wall to talk to rammygirl:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest241083 Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I haven't tarred anyone with the same brush or changed my tune. It is a fact that the tax treatment of property investors here is much more generous than other comparable nations. It makes no difference if these people are "genuine" mum & dad investors (whatever that means), the tax treatment is still the same and I think it should be changed. I think it will be changed before too long too, against the backdrop of everyone else having to pay more (or receive less) it's the only fair course of action Having been a landlord in a much less generous jurisdiction I know the risks and pitfalls of property investment - actually I got rid of them because with the hassle they started to feel more of a liability than an asset - but that's no excuse for the system we have here, which rewards loading up with debt. I'd rather some of the capital that was being ploughed into buying existing properties and renting them out was redirected towards either new build - ie something that genuinely increases housing supply - or into business ventures that are more likely to grow the economy or incentivise productivity. It would be much better for the country as a whole .........but often the small property investors provide a service..... .........sometimes cheaper than large conglomerates..... .........personal landlords often the last chance for those finding themselves on the TICA register... ..........without some incentive.......why bother.... ..........without these the large property rental groups would be free to monopolise and restrict renters options.... ..........just as the small businesses are disappearing under the growth of large companies.... ..........ie Coles and woollies.......pushing the small local shops out of business..... ..........personally owned rental properties often supply a need IMO.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northshorepom Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Yeah I know they're not all negatively geared. Still doesn't change the fact that that concession is unusual, nor the argument that it is unnecessary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northshorepom Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 .........but often the small property investors provide a service..... .........sometimes cheaper than large conglomerates..... .........personal landlords often the last chance for those finding themselves on the TICA register... ..........without some incentive.......why bother.... ..........without these the large property rental groups would be free to monopolise and restrict renters options.... ..........just as the small businesses are disappearing under the growth of large companies.... ..........ie Coles and woollies.......pushing the small local shops out of business..... ..........personally owned rental properties often supply a need IMO.... Got no problem with small property rental landlords, I used to be one Got no problem with people organising their tax affairs in the most efficient way possible either, the rules are there so use them Got no problem with understanding that not all property investors are loaded ............ however: Have I got a problem with investors crying poor, when they live in a nation that gives them an easier ride from a tax PoV than any other? You betcha Have I got a problem with investors making out they are doing tenants a selfless service and therefore deserve that easy ride? You betcha Speaking objectively, if you are a small investor who relies on NG then I reckon you're best off divesting yourself of your properties and looking for another asset class, because the party is likely to be over pretty soon. If you don't rely on or use NG then it makes no difference, does it? If anything you ought to be better off because in some constrained markets rents may rise, especially in the short term (depends on how any govt would phase such a change in of course but let's face it, the record of the commonwealth on phasing tax changes to avoid market shock is pretty poor) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest241083 Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Got no problem with small property rental landlords, I used to be one Got no problem with people organising their tax affairs in the most efficient way possible either, the rules are there so use them Got no problem with understanding that not all property investors are loaded ............ however: Have I got a problem with investors crying poor, when they live in a nation that gives them an easier ride from a tax PoV than any other? You betcha Have I got a problem with investors making out they are doing tenants a selfless service and therefore deserve that easy ride? You betcha Speaking objectively, if you are a small investor who relies on NG then I reckon you're best off divesting yourself of your properties and looking for another asset class, because the party is likely to be over pretty soon. If you don't rely on or use NG then it makes no difference, does it? If anything you ought to be better off because in some constrained markets rents may rise, especially in the short term (depends on how any govt would phase such a change in of course but let's face it, the record of the commonwealth on phasing tax changes to avoid market shock is pretty poor) ..........your second two.....'problems'........would occur with any situation.... ..........there will always be those who rort a system.... ...........and selfless service.....? ...........no but a service......IMO.... ..........and I think mother is too old to change lol... ..........it's her security in her eyes..... ...........if the system changes...........it will only hurt the small people..... ...........as in life.......the big guns will ride it out.... ...........already finding other ways to.....make money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Yeah I know they're not all negatively geared. Still doesn't change the fact that that concession is unusual, nor the argument that it is unnecessary It is not unusual it has been about for over a hundred years I believe. Though in todays world it is past its best before date and needs refreshing, however the reasoning behind it coming into being in general still stands, to help the housing market (though to a far lesser degree today) and provide homes for those that could not afford to buy in doing so the tax man gives little help to start for greater returns to flow back to him later! and the government does not have to spend money up front building commission homes. It was seen as a win win situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuffythetugboat Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 It is not unusual it has been about for over a hundred years I believe.Though in todays world it is past its best before date and needs refreshing, however the reasoning behind it coming into being in general still stands, to help the housing market (though to a far lesser degree today) and provide homes for those that could not afford to buy in doing so the tax man gives little help to start for greater returns to flow back to him later! and the government does not have to spend money up front building commission homes. It was seen as a win win situation. Really? And I thought it was another way to help the rich get richer, not helping the poor people! Silly me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Really? And I thought it was another way to help the rich get richer, not helping the poor people! Silly me. And that is one of the biggest problems............people having the wrong all encompassing thoughts. However if the definition of rich is having to go out to work every day for a salary or hourly rate and at times go without to survive or better oneself, then............................there are indeed a lot of rich people getting richer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.