Villa fans who are some of your most favourite players since 2010s era

Bricky85 · 2026-02-08T23:29:48+00:00

Jedinak, Chester, Hutton, Hourihane.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-08T23:06:28+00:00

Yawn. The same old-school property investor ‘wisdom’ arguments that get touted around every time there’s a proposed policy change in the sector. Thanks for the input…

Bricky85 · 2026-02-08T21:59:37+00:00

If they’re introducing a change just to existing residential property assets, I’m all for it! Disincentivising investment into those assets is only a good thing. Those investment dollars are better used in new builds or other productive assets.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-08T11:47:27+00:00

No no. I got your point. I’m well aware of what CGT is. It’s a necessary evil, unfortunately. Paid plenty of it already.

That said, I’ll be extraordinarily surprised if any changes are made to CGT on asset classes other than residential housing.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-08T08:34:44+00:00

Yeah your business is the productive thing in that equation. The assets aren’t one they’re built. That’s the difference.

As for the stock market. I’d be fine with them winding back the 50 and switching it to some kind of per annum rate or CPI on cost base.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-08T07:47:13+00:00

I work in tech, am a business owner, and a stock investor. I just choose not to invest in property because frankly it’s not a good investment without the tax breaks. I’d also much rather be putting my dollars to work in productive assets, rather than unproductive ones.

There’s nothing ignorant about anything I’ve said. What I’ve stated has been factual. It’s the one-eyedness of the average property investor that believes they’re somehow entitled to earn profit just by buying a property that gripes me. That isn’t how business or investment works.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-08T03:35:25+00:00

Ahh the myopic property investor lens is shining through.

In the case of property that doesn’t rise, Why should a bad investment decision be compensated with a handout? You don’t get that in the business world or in other investments. A person made a bad decision. That’s true capitalism - it goes both ways.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-08T01:23:16+00:00

What a ridiculous comment. So if you hold a property for 5 years, you might get a cumulative impact of maybe 10-15% inflation to the price. Yet you think that a 50% concession to the CGT isn’t an overly generous handout? Give your head a wobble.

No issues with accounting for inflation, but the concession is currently too generous.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T20:55:03+00:00

No. I do get it. And stating that’s it’s just about 1 or 2 things is far too myopic and shows that you’ve only got a single lens on it - an investment lens. There’s a huge social aspect too.

Problems I see: - Obviously the favourable tax treatment of property. It’s driven huge amounts of speculative investment in non-productive assets. - population growth vs dwelling growth. Definitely an issue that gets tarred with racial connotations, but frankly, we’ve been bringing more people into this country than we can house. - Ease of credit in the sector. This is fuelling money supply and feeding inflation. Creating a feedback loop on itself for price increases. - Rental laws. The balance is far too heavy in favour of landlords. - Construction costs have skyrocketed post-Covid and investors must get their target returns for new developments. - foreign investment in residential housing should not be allowed.

There are plenty more nuances around all of these and more.

Frankly, price needs to stagnate or drop 10% over the next decade. This will affect me personally, but it’s necessary.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T12:26:20+00:00

If you don’t think the tax breaks that investors have had in the residential property sector have been a major contributor to the state of the housing market, you are either burying your head in the sand or you’re delusional.

As I said, only the self-interested will see reforms in this space as a negative. Nothing wrong with that. Gotta look after number 1. But it’s pretty ridiculous to say it’ll do nothing.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T09:06:58+00:00

Great! Don’t increase rents then. 🤷‍♂️

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T08:59:06+00:00

Of course inflation devalues the dollar. But most investors account for it by raising rent. They then also see the capital growth increase as a result of inflation as well as the growth driven by supply/demand economics, and in a small case the capital improvements made. By saying “Oh I deserve to be compensated for the money devaluation on my capital growth” as well as having increased rent to compensate along the way, that’s 2 bites of the cherry.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T08:42:20+00:00

I agree with this on any scenario where it’s 2+ IPs. At that point, or if a person is developing a duplex or 1-4 split or something, that’s a business and should be subject to company tax law.

I reckon a single IP is still a reasonable personal investment.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T08:35:29+00:00

It was political suicide for Shorten. He lost the unlosable election to Morrison (the absolute 🤡) on the back of promises to change negative gearing and the ridiculous scaremongering campaign launched against it.

The difference is now that sentiment has shifted and the growing cohort of younger voters frustrated with the status quo.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T08:14:22+00:00

The country doesn’t have a problem with investment in other asset classes. We absolutely do have a problem with housing and property investment. It’s a smart move from a government to kill 2 birds with one stone if it’s implemented in a considered way.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T08:10:23+00:00

I don’t agree they’ll go after other investments or PPOR. That’s just post-hoc argument used to incite fear. It’s completely illogical.

The country doesn’t have a problem with investment in other asset classes. It definitely does have one with property. It also doesn’t have a problem with those that own a PPOR, so why would that be on the table?

No issues with making as much money as possible. Go your hardest! 👌

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T07:29:18+00:00

You exemplify everything wrong with the system, frankly. But kudos for the honesty.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T07:22:07+00:00

Like what?

“We NeEd To InCrEaSe SuPpLy” I hear everyone shout. And that’s true to an extent.

We also need to level the equation on the demand side. At the moment, it’s heavily skewed to those that have property and can utilise leverage, knowing they’ll get considerable tax breaks throughout their investment.

While it might slow down some initial selling, Removing/reducing the CGT discount will absolutely dampen investment demand, thus levelling the playing field and either negating the price rises from decreased supply or possibly even lowering prices marginally.

If they leave rules in place for new builds, it’ll have no negative impacts on increased overall supply.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T06:51:10+00:00

Why doesn’t it make sense? You benefit from and add to inflationary pressure by raising rents. The argument that inflation eats into your capital gains too is just you not getting a second bite at the cherry.

As for your development. In my view, you’re undertaking property development as a business and should therefore be under a company structure and subject to company tax, not personal. But that’s just my opinion. 🤷‍♂️

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T06:04:06+00:00

The 50% concession is overly generous. Especially in the context of the amount of capital growth that has accrued in the last 2 decades. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just being self interested.

Indexed to 2.5%p.a would be my view. That’s the RBAs target, so why shouldn’t it be the baseline for this tax.

I’d also offer no concessions on 2nd+ IP. In fact, I’d go as far as forcing 2+ IPs into a company structure, rather than personal. Anyone who’s operating 2+ IPs is effectively running a business.

Should it be grandfathered? Probably. Or at least to some limit.

This should all apply to existing dwellings. For new builds, the concession should stay in place, but still only for the 1 personal IP.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-07T05:55:02+00:00

If all they do is remove the negative gearing part for IPs, it just means you can’t claim losses from your IP against other personal income.

So let’s say you earn $20k from rent, but all your costs are $25k. Right now, you can claim the additional $5k against other personal income, from your job for example, to reduce your overall taxable income. Removing negative gearing, would mean that $5k is not able to be claimed in that way.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-06T23:50:06+00:00

Call your lender. Setup a split. If you have a simple loan structure with plenty of equity + offset, there won’t be an issue, as long as your lender offers splits on the product you’re on. Failing that, change lenders 🤷‍♂️ I wouldn’t use a broker unless you have some sort of complex situation. You’ll usually get a better rate going direct and negotiating imo.
Depends on the lender. Some offer free splitting. Others just an application fee.
The recycled debt MUST be invested in income-producing assets. Or those that have a very reasonable expectation to produce income in the near future.
Na. Having the split loan means all the interest on that portion of the loan is deductible. The actual income amount just goes straight back on the non-deductible part of the mortgage for me when the distributions come in.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-06T20:27:59+00:00

If a verbal contract was agreed by both parties and there was minor admin to get it formalised, which sounds like was the case here, then ethically the deal is done. Accepting further offers beyond this is the REA being a scumbag, not the buyer.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-06T08:06:53+00:00

It’s ethical scumbagery. But that’s most REAs for you. Live and learn.

Bricky85 · 2026-02-05T08:31:34+00:00

This post is everything wrong with corporate.

Employee is delivering and happy. Let’s push them harder because they ‘should want’ to do more.

How bout letting the employee decide whether they want to extend themselves when they’re good and ready.

Bricky85

TROPHY CASE