Printable View
Nice thought but for a couple of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosco
1: I invest to make money (cash flow), not save tax. Besides which, we are both in a reasonably low tax bracket anyway.
2: Managed by whom? If I have a share portfoliop, I will manage it, maybe I am a control freak...:twisted:.
3: What happens to the share portfolio when the bottom drops out of the share market (not if it does, this is just my opinion).
1: Capital growth + dividend = moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by BigJon
2: I don't have one as yet (seriously considering it). A mate has one managed by Suncorp here .. I think. It was returning 20+ %. Most banks etc offer this service .. I'm sure performance results would be available, I recall St. George went quite well.
3: Like everything, it's a long term venture. History has shown the share market out performs housing in the longer term.... + 7 yrs.
Im considering borrowing $120K and investing $110K or so, the $10K balance is there to cover interest. That way it becomes passive and should work out OK ... I HOPE.
(edit) any financial gurus out there who reckon my theory is flawed ... please speak up (edit)
1: Does the dividend put $$ in your pocket every week like rent on an invetment property does?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosco
2: I still don't like it. Most are products sold by people on commission.
3: You can find statistics to support any position. I don't agree with that particular one. Also, see point one.
I do live in the Bennalong electorate and I will be giving Little Johnnie another go both as an excellent local member who helps young and old on local issues and on a federal scale I think he has done a good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiggers
Some trumped up half baked journo ABC leftie posing as a politician does not cut the mustard I'm afraid.
I still remember the recession we had to have the last time the Paul Bearer and the union boys had a go. I remember eating vegemite sandwiches to save money so I did not lose my house at 18% interest rates.
It always strikes me as strange that whenever the Labor Party - the party that looks after the battler, get in, interest rates go through the roof, unemployment goes up to record levels and inflation blows out. Not a real good way to look after the downtrodden and disaffected.
I always loved the way Paul Bearer was the champion of the public education system but sent his kids to exclusive private schools. Do as I say not as I do
If there are more job losses why do we have the lowest unemployment for 33 years - fact from figures released last weekQuote:
Originally Posted by Outback 1
Then why will you only employ contractors if AWA's are so much better?Quote:
Originally Posted by amtravic1
There was nothing stopping you employing contractors before the AWA's?
As has been said several times it is easy for us to sit here and complain about workers rights and unions but do we really want to go back to where these don't exist? Where it is OK to expect people to work whatever hours the boss wants, weekends, public holidays, nights etc with no penalty rates.
Australia used to be about "fairness" and "family", both suffer under the AWA system.... except of course for the "have's" they will continue to be well off, heck who cares if it is at the expense of others.
It is a bit like the business people complaining about lack of tradesman when for years they have relied on government departments and "big" industry to train apprentices and not taking on one themselves.
It would be interesting to run a poll on how many small business operators who have a trade, and that is there business, eg electricians, learn't their trade with the government.
I'm involved in the pollie 'game' (which it is).
Labor and Rudd, despite the polls, are not a shoe-in.
They've made some fundamental errors, as in pre-selection of local candidates, which will hurt their chances.
eg: See the Labor challenger for the South Australian seat of Boothby, Nicole Cornes...
Peter Garrets 'neutering' wont help the ALP, either...
Uh-oh...
Labor/Rudd need to win 17 seats, hmmmmmmm.
Trouble is, as its all about winning (and has nothing to do with how to run the country), Labor is not putting its best feet forward....
GQ
The "Labour means high interest rates, Liberal low" seems a bit of a phurphy to me. I'm sure there's data going back futher, but this was what was easy to find:
http://www.loansense.com.au/historical-rates.html
Take a look at the graph and you can see that there was a baseline increase from 1968 until 1990 and then a decline from 1990 until about 2000 and that things have been fairly stable since then. Interestingly, the "Paul Bearer" had the interest rates down to 8.75% in 1993, having inherited a rate of 12.5% from the Liberals. The data says that either (a) no government could have done much about the (underlying) interest rates or (b) Keating and Hawke saved us from genuinely becoming the "Pacific Peso."
Frankly, the global economy has a lot more impact than either so-called "end" of the political spectrum. Paul Keating was an arrogant pig, not just the owner of some, but he was a hard-nosed economist not a spendthrift.
And for the record, I've never voted Labor, voted conservative the last State election and will wait to see my candidates locally before deciding this time.
Keating was one of the less 'arrogant', scrambler:D:D:D
Worked with him in 1993, he was okay.
Worked with Hawkie in 1987, he was a pita...
Worked on a Gough campaign way back when,
his mere presence was enough to 'quiet';) anyone..
The behind the scenes, there are, err, umm, 'people', they are the real problem....
Some of Keating's 'advisors' would've done the Adolf Hitler proud...
Some of Howards are the same...
I get about ten (very skewed) press releases a day from a Senator, one Kerry O'Brien, his lot are keen!
And some of what turns up here from the Howard camp is a decided worry...
It's all about 'power'...
Both sides are only after the swinging voter.
They already know that about 80% is in the (respective) bag(s)...
GQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon
Mate, we probably could be charged with hijack, but ...
1: You only get income from property if you own it, the same applies here, except you get it when they pay a dividend, perhaps annually ??
2: What do you think estate agents get ?
3: Agreed.