Shared path bad behaviour

Shane Stanley said:

Theo Bekkers said:

It's not that hard.

Liar.

You only need to stck your shovel in the ground twenty times to fill a
barrow. Do that a dozen times and you've moved a tonne of dirt. That's the
first hour gone. Take a rest. Have a cold drink. Do another hour, another
tonne of dirt.

Theo

In article <[email hidden]>,

Theo Bekkers said:

You only need to stck your shovel in the ground twenty times to fill a
barrow. Do that a dozen times and you've moved a tonne of dirt. That's the
first hour gone. Take a rest. Have a cold drink. Do another hour, another
tonne of dirt.

Theo explains how the pyramids were built...

;-)

--
Shane Stanley

Stuart Lamble said:

Theo Bekkers said:

If I lived in a $200K house ten years ago and now
live in a $400K house, and it is the same house, and all the other houses
have increased in value by a similar margin, what the hell have I gained?

You've gained the ability to sell your house, buy a smaller one, and
have a greater amount of money stashed away in the bank compared to what
you would have had stashed away had prices stayed stagnant, that's what.

At his age, Theo wouldn't want to start doing that. You do not reduce
your equity in your home until after you have retire and need to convert
some of it to cash. Equity in your home is not considered countable
assets by Centrelink when they consider you for the pension.

As my Italian neighbour said when he finally retired at 70, "They even
count the hairs on your [censored]" {:-).

Quoted message said:

There's a reason why I bought a very small unit (aside from the fact
that it's all I really need) a bit over a year ago. Anything bigger and
I'd be broke.

When we went to the BS for our home loan, we were offered $300K (83?),
but resisted the temptation for both of use to HAVE to work for 25 years
and just took $50K and purchased a nice little home.

[quote="coppershark"][QUOTE=>>The trick is you make it up on capital gains. Which of course are taxable as to 50% of the gain at your marginal tax rate.[/quote]

If you sell quickly, and/or make more than reasonable (jatgon) gains.

Quoted message said:

Of course many of the people who do the property investment thing
sometimes "forget" to include the capital gain in their tax returns.

I suspect that the ATO now has software which asks the question about
capital gains on property when the rental loss suddenly stops and
whilst it was too hard to go after the Late KP small taxpayers are easy
targets.

Terry Collins said:

At his age, Theo wouldn't want to start doing that. You do not reduce
your equity in your home until after you have retire and need to convert
some of it to cash. Equity in your home is not considered countable
assets by Centrelink when they consider you for the pension.

Unless you live on a really big block, in which case the exemption is
only partial.

Other asset test exemptions include:

Superannuation in accumulation mode, if the owner is under the Age
Pension age. (e.g. one spouse might be of age pension age, but the
other might not be).

50% of the value of any new complying income streams.

Pre-paid funeral plans.

.... but not much else.

I often tell people who are about to retire, or already retired, to
bring forward any renovations and other spending they were planning,
because the sooner the money is spent the sooner Centrelink stops
assessing it. This doesn't mean you should blow money just to get it
off your asset test, but it does mean if you were going to remodel the
living room anyway, there is no reason to put that off.

Income is assessed in a complex manner, with various investments
producing a "deemed" income, except real estate where actual net income
is counted, superannuation income streams are counted as the payment
minus a deductible which is equal to the purchase price divided by the
term, minus an allowance for any lump sum commutations you've made.

Contrary to what some pensioners believe, you are not "supposed" to
earn the same rate as the deeming rate and any income you earn over
this is exempt from testing, so I personally think those "deeming
accounts" set up by banks to offer the deemed rate of interest are a
bit of a scam, because you can get a perfectly secure higher return
from plenty of at all cash management trusts.

It gets really messy with line of credit and reverse mortgages.
Centrelink actually define these as an asset under certain
circumstances.

Quoted message said:

As my Italian neighbour said when he finally retired at 70, "They even
count the hairs on your [censored]" {:-).

Oh no, those are partially exempt. ;-)

Travis

Travis said:

Terry Collins said:

At his age, Theo wouldn't want to start doing that. You do not reduce
your equity in your home until after you have retire and need to convert
some of it to cash. Equity in your home is not considered countable
assets by Centrelink when they consider you for the pension.

Unless you live on a really big block, in which case the exemption is
only partial.

Whilst we have an expert, what are the figures? Is it still 2.54
hectares for pension and newstart?

Terry Collins said:

Travis said:

Terry Collins said:

At his age, Theo wouldn't want to start doing that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unless you live on a really big block, in which case the exemption is
only partial.

Quoted message said:

Whilst we have an expert, what are the figures? Is it still 2.54
hectares for pension and newstart?

Better be, my block is 2.078 hectares. :-)

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Better be, my block is 2.078 hectares. :-)

Do you have any horses/cows/alpacas?

I hear alpaca sh!t is good for gardens!

Lotte

LotteBum said:

Theo Bekkers said:

Better be, my block is 2.078 hectares. :-)

Do you have any horses/cows/alpacas?

I hear alpaca sh!t is good for gardens!

No hooved animals at all, cloven or otherwise. there are more than enough
horses, and alpacas, in the area to supply me with all the [censored] I want. Even
one horse will make a dustbowl out of 2 ha here in summer unless you have it
divided into at least three paddocks and manage it very carefully. About
half my block is semi-virgin bush with a few hundred gum trees and about 500
grass trees. The rest we have planted about 200 trees and grass and stuff.
No room for hooves. We do have seven chooks and three dogs. They get along
with each other remarkably well. Hooved grazing animals will compact the
soil up to a depth of a metre or more over time.

Theo

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:23:45 +1000, Terry Collins
<[email hidden]> wrote in aus.bicycle:

Quoted message said:

Travis said:

Terry Collins said:

At his age, Theo wouldn't want to start doing that. You do not reduce
your equity in your home until after you have retire and need to convert
some of it to cash. Equity in your home is not considered countable
assets by Centrelink when they consider you for the pension.

Unless you live on a really big block, in which case the exemption is
only partial.

Whilst we have an expert, what are the figures? Is it still 2.54
hectares for pension and newstart?

According to the SMH Money suppliment 28 Nov - 2 Dec the limit is 2
hectares around your home. But you are only assessed on the amount
over that limit.

Regards
Prickles

Timendi causa est nescire
This message only uses recycled electrons

In article said:

dtmeister said:

Quoted message said:

I love riding in to work every day, we're lucky to have such

excellent

Quoted message said:

cycling facilities in Melbourne. Even so, I don't have to spend much
time wondering why we get so much bad press. I reckon I see as much

bad

Quoted message said:

behaviour from fellow cyclists as I do from motorists.

It's true, there's a bad element in both groups. The difference is
that our bad element doesn't tend to kill people...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1598415.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1597564.htm

Exactly. I'm not condoning rudeness for one second but let's keep it
in perspective shall we?

All I've read about in the last couple of weeks is ``there is
potential'' ``I've had X number of near misses'' ``it's only a matter
of time.''

The fact is that in a collision with a pedestrian the is a high
liklihood that the cyclist is going to get hurt. Most cyclists know
this, most cyclists do the right thing.

For the ones that don't do the right thing, it's bad PR for the rest
of us but it's nowhere near as dangerous as anti-social behaviour
behind the wheel of a car is. A pedestrian collision with a cyclist is
more likely than not survieable, the same cannot be said of a pedestrian
collision with a car.

If I was walking & got hit by a cyclist (such as the one described by
the O.P.), I wouldn't care how much the cyclist hurt - I'd be very sore
(in both senses of the word) with what he'd just done to me.
Just because 'our bad element doesn't tend to kill people', that doesn't
make riding so dangerously excusable.
---

--
K.A. Moylan
Canberra, Australia
Ski Club: http://www.cccsc.asn.au
kamoylan at ozemail dot com dot au

Terry Collins wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

One day, Tam will remember I already have two bits of [censored] {:-).

That's probably good for you, but I wouldn't like that, as I am allergic
to cats.

Tam

Theo Bekkers said:

Terry Collins said:

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just one of my three kids and his wife paid $70,000 in income tax
this year.

Quoted message said:

They must be employees.

Of the family company, yes :-)

Quoted message said:

Ever heard of negative gearing?

To save tax they should buy property, borrow the money from the bank, rent
it out at a loss, then claim that loss as a tax deduction so that they get
30% of that loss back in their tax return. That way they will be better
off financially.

Sounds good.

If your son and his wife paid $70,000 in income tax they must surely be in
the top tax bracket (42%) ? Then 42% of any losses from renting the property
will be claimable. On top of that they get the benefits of the capital
appreciation in the property. Of course this depends upon choosing a
property that is going to increase in value over time, usually city homes.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Terry Collins said:

Tamyka Bell said:

Terry Collins wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

One day, Tam will remember I already have two bits of [censored] {:-).

That's probably good for you, but I wouldn't like that, as I am allergic
to cats.

err, cat {:-).
"Only way to have two bits of [censored] is to make sure one of them is a cat".

And congrats, you were a lot faster than most guys.

*sigh* if only that applied to me when cycling.

Quoted message said:

sigh. bike maintenance day

yay! bikes!

Tam

Peter Signorini said:

"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To save tax they should buy property, borrow the money from the
bank, rent it out at a loss, then claim that loss as a tax deduction
so that they get 30% of that loss back in their tax return. That way
they will be better off financially.

Quoted message said:

If your son and his wife paid $70,000 in income tax they must surely
be in the top tax bracket (42%) ? Then 42% of any losses from renting
the property will be claimable. On top of that they get the benefits
of the capital appreciation in the property. Of course this depends
upon choosing a property that is going to increase in value over
time, usually city homes.

OK, so they get 42% of their losses back. It's still a loss for at least ten
years.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

OK, so they get 42% of their losses back. It's still a loss for at
least ten years.

Negative gearing is actually a massive rort on the tax system. With
*anything* else, you can only claim costs up to the amount the item
brought in. eg: if I were a diving instructor (to use a hobby I have[1]),
I could claim the cost of (say) a new tank as a tax deduction. But this
would only work up to the amount of money I earn as a diving instructor.
If I only earn $2,000 pa as a dive instructor, I could buy up to $AU2000
of gear as a tax deduction, but the rest would come out of my post-tax
dollars.

Rental property is different. You can claim *all* of your losses on tax,
not just the amount up to the rent earned.

Trouble is, closing that little loophole would be a prime example of
political suicide ...

[1] I dive, but I'm not a dive instructor, just to make it clear.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".