Yes, so you don?t have to put the full purchase price in from your own money.
£x is invested, but only part of that is your money, the rest is borrowed, so the return you get is the return you get on your own money you invested.
But the return you get is on your own money you invested, not the total invested. And when negative gearing is allowed by the tax regime, the return can be much better when geared.
Yep.
So that property produced a much better return than he listed.
Same with that one.
Still a much better return than he listed which means it was clearly worth doing.
You buy a £100k house. You get £6k rent, which is £5k income/year after £1k costs.
Except... You got an £80k mortgage, on which you pay £4k interest/year.
You are getting £1k return on your investment.
If you're ignoring the borrowed money, how on earth do you take the interest in to account? If you ignore the borrowings, you might as well just say "Well, I'm getting £5k return on my £20k investment".
Yes, because you're paying the interest out of before-tax money, not after-tax money.
Exactly.
What was said was...
Exactly.
What was said was...
Oh, indeed. But what was claimed was that they rise at around the rate of inflation in the long run.
Do you want to bet on it continuing to do that in the future? There have certainly been short-term periods where they've fallen - let alone risen at less than inflation. In many parts of the country, that's still the case.
B'sides, since when was buying AFTER a long-term above-expectation rise in values a smart move...? Just means you buy at the peak of the bubble.
It's exactly the same thing. If you're going under 30 on the motorway, people are going to be swerving round you, and you'll get done for it. I once did 40mph on the motorway as my bonnet had become loose and was threatening to fly up. I got about 50% of people hooting at me, especially the lorries. A policeman would no doubt have been rather annoyed.
I didn?t say you were ignoring your borrowings. I JUST said that when calculating the return on your investment, it?s the amount you actually put in of your own money that the return is calculated on, not the total of what you put in and what you borrowed.
That has nothing to do with the return you get on the amount of your own cash you invested.
And if pressed, traffic engineers might confirm that they considered 35 to be a safe speed on said road. This being so it couldn't be given a 40 limit but 35 would be considered safe under normal conditions notwithstanding the official limit being 30.
We had the nonsensical situation here of some speed limits being reduced from 90kph to 80kph to 'tidy things up' - nothing to do with safety.
I know of one road where it had a 60mph speed limit for many years and was easily usable at that speed in most weather conditions. Then the
60mph signs were replaced by 50mph signs and a speed camera was installed. Someone made a lot of money from the commuters who knew the road and drove as they always had done, until the fine dropped through their letterbox.
There's a road that I use when going to the airport that has lots of different speed limits on different sections. It's confusing, and I'd rather they used the same (albeit lower) limit throughout.
Fined for not paying attention seems OK to me. Its not as though they hide the ones where they could make money. If they hid them like the police sometimes do the fine went straight to the government.
You are right to describe it as a fine for not paying attention, but when all the arguments were about whether the term "Safety Cameras" was a con, something that is a revenue earner pure and simple does prove that milking the motorist was the real agenda. There was nothing that justified the change of speed limit, and thus the government guidelines were not followed. It is a good road with ample visibility and capable of easily sustaining traffic speeds at the higher limit, so the lower limit would be unnecessarily slow.
When I first got my driving licence, there were only two speeds on road signs, 30mph and any speed the driver chose. Drivers at the time (me included) rapidly learned to read the road ahead and assess the appropriate speed (because the alternative, in the absence of seat belts, air bags and crumple zones was an early funeral), so I perhaps have an advanced sense of "unnecessarily slow" which younger drivers are unlikely to have, having been accustomed to relying on signs telling them what to do. I perhaps have a greater awareness of cameras intended to make money rather than contribute to road safety.
If you have driven past a sign that shows 60, every working day for years, would you really be confident of noticing one day that the 6 had changed to a 5? I am a reasonably observant driver but I am not sure I would, because my focus would be on the things that vary, the road and the traffic, and not on something that had always been there.
Yes, the law is the law and is supposed to be obeyed; but when the law appears to be blatantly unfair it brings the law into contempt. Whilst I don't condone it, I can understand why some speed cameras were the subject of arson attacks.
That's done to minimise the number of speed limit changes.
NSW has in fact gone the other way adding more 60kph sections where the 50kph built up area limit isn't very sensible, usually on the higher volume roads in built up areas.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.