KhunHeineken

There are no "profits" until it's sold. Profits can not be released without selling. Do you agree, or disagree? Which proves the point I am making. To "make the money" you have to "cash in" but after casing in, you need another roof over your head and you will be buying back into a market that is most likely at the top, because that's why you sold. Not withstanding moving location or downsizing. Once again, this is a time based factor. Over the long term, I accept what you say. Over the short term, many have lost, for many different reasons. Another member who disagreed with me posted a graph for the US that actually proved my point on two occasions. I remember during the GFC you could buy a house in many cities in America for next to nothing. You can only go up from there, but how about we discuss the thousands of people that sold. Did they get to see any "increase in value?" No one said it was a problem. It just takes more of the profits from the sale of the "roof over your head" property.

Some examples?

So am I. Actually, do everyone a favor and put me on ignore. That way, you do not disrupt the threads I post on for others with your trolling.

Can be worse than what's happening in Australia in relation to energy. Australia has vast gas reserves, and in fact, is a major exporter of gas, yet Australia is looking at having to import gas. It will most likely be our own gas that we buy back.

I agree. This has been the source of a lot of debate in the Australia Pension thread. Members just saw the word "pension" in the DTA and jumped to the conclusion that it is tax exempt in Australia and Thailand. Article 19 sets out only "government service pensions" are included in the DTA, and the aged pension is not a government service pension. Yes, she will get a war widows pension.

Yes, I know.

Capital growth rate, compared to the interest rate, would be vital if that was one's strategy.

"Unless you are inside trading, then land & RE are never losers" - YOUR words, not mine. Property is not like stock. One example is say a worker is transferred by their employer and has to sell. They may take a loss on the sale. They really don't have a chance to "sell smartly." They need the equity from the sale to buy in a new location. There are many other examples where not everyone makes money on property.

One could downsize and take some profit, but for those already in a downsized property, what you describe is correct.

Not pretty, and the same across the nation. https://www.9news.com.au/national/nsw-emergency-departments-ambulances-still-struggling-to-meet-targets-report-finds/48575660-d42f-4758-9da6-a5a0a14440a7

Realizing a profit from the roof over one's head only ever happens when you sell the roof over your head, then, you have to buy back into the same market. It's not always a good idea to flip a property that you have been living in, just because it's gone up in value.

History has proven proven property increases in value over the long term. The same can not be said for stock. Some stocks go to worthless, and the company goes bust, and is dissolved. Not the same same as property.

You are the one who mentioned the UN. I do not like the fact that the UN gets some of my tax money. They do nothing except press conferences say how they "condemn this and condemn that" without ever taking any action. Getting back on topic, perhaps a youtuber could make a video clip on the UN's failure as an organization.

The UN not doing much for the Ukrainians and Palestinians, are they?

What's the UN ever done for you????

You don't pay VAT?

I agree. However, Australian's had their chance to vote for Bill Shorten and a winding back of negative gearing. Shorten basically lost an election he could lose. Even if you didn't like Shorten, the policy to wind back negative gearing was appropriate. In the last couple of years, people are calling change, but too late. They had their change and voted against it. No political party will go to an election on a negative gearing change in the foreseeable future. Seems like too many Aussies are on the negative gearing gravy train, and it's making for a very unequal Australian society. Something will have to give eventually, and it isn't going to be pretty when that time comes.

As I just posted, property over the long term has been proven to increase in value. However, that's not what the member said. He basically said, "you can never lose" and I disagree with that. As you have said, sometimes, for some reasons, property can take a "big dip" and some people lose.

You graph proves my point. See years 2009 and 2011? Prices dropped. You said this: "Unless you are inside trading, then land & RE are never losers" Your own graph shows this as incorrect. If you said words like, "over the long term, property only gains in value" or similar, I would have agreed, but you said "property never losers" and that's incorrect.

Doesn't hurt to be prepared though, does it? Is it that much work?

It will take western countries a while to catch up to Thailand.

I guess you never studied how Thailand profited from the Vietnam war.

Did he also say he might not have a job after the election?

Did the amount paid / withdrawn / withheld have a name? Did you ask Bangkok Bang about it?

Not hard for them to compel banks to report annual remittance over the threshold to the TRD. In Australia, every transaction over $10,000AUD is reported to AUSTRAC, a government agency.