fineleg Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 I agree with Mandrake. People will buy what they think will help improve their day-to-day lives. They are not going to "forsake" things.
Lurker Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Lurker' date='I don't think that people back home are buying cars to ape the west....most Indian metros have almost non existent public transport with the possible exception of Bombay. People have the need of a car to commute and they have the money for it. If you want people to shun cars give them a viable alternative. I lived in Bangalore as recently as 2005 and used to drive to work. I would never use the dingy Govt bus service. There was practically no alternative even if I didn't want to drive and add to the chaos on the roads.[/quote'] Fair argument Mandrake. We certainly need to do lot more to improve transportation in India but is the lack of transport the only reason, or even the main reason? I dont quite see it that way. Look at the example of Mumbai. Unarguably the best city in the country in terms of surface transport. Mumbai's BEST buses and trains services are wonderful. I would say in many ways it can hold its own against surface transport in USA(minus air conditioned of course). And still 14 lakh cars in Mumbai?? That just doesnt add up then, does it? A completely irrelevant, or perhaps relevant, way of looking at this is that somewhere, consciously or unconsciously, Indians have started to go the US route. Maybe a better model would be European route? Surface transport is needed but when it is not there maybe people can just hop on a bicycle(even Chinese do that). It shall ease the pressure on road, cut down on oil imports, improve the pollution and better your health. But how many Indians, middle class and above, do you think shall take the bicycle way? I think very few. xxx
Ram Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 What Lurker is suggesting is pushing the limits of whats practical, to be honest.
Guest dada_rocks Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 I am with u lurker on this no Car no n number of house...... Travel in bus it's good socialization aur bonus mein achchhi ladkiyan milengi baat karne ko aur kya chahiye.. My boss in India must be drawing 30 lakh per annum at least in 2000 but he used to avail company bus I asked him Don't u have car his answer. Main car se nahin chalta kyunki bekar nahin hun Bas se chalta hun kyunki bebas nahin main :haha:
fineleg Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 What Lurker is suggesting is pushing the limits of whats practical' date=' to be honest.[/quote'] Nothin wrong with what he suggests, however as you say, not gonna happen practically.
Mandrake Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Nothin wrong with what he suggests' date=' however as you say, not gonna happen practically.[/quote'] Absolutely...take the example of a far more developed country like USA....do u expect people to let go of anything that puts their daily life at an inconvenience? For a developing nation like India,the push has to come from the Govt, provide people with better transport and then discourage them from buying cars something like Singapore.
Lurker Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Absolutely...take the example of a far more developed country like USA....do u expect people to let go of anything that puts their daily life at an inconvenience? Its funny you mention that Mandrake. Today we had a colleague from Brussels come over. She moved a couple of years to Belgium with her boyfriend. Her family lives in US which she was visiting over Thanksgiving. When she walked in most of the office workers were amazed as how young and healthy she looked(she worked here for a few years before she moved to Belgium). We were out on lunch and she kept mentioning how she eats pretty much the same as she used but it is the lifestyle, she bikes everyday about 5-10 km to work, pretty much everyone does. Foods are mostly cooked by hands and not a pre-packaged meal thrown into the microwave and so on. Not to mention that most European countries have gas prices atleast 3-4 times than USA and so people dont drive(less traffic and less pollution too). Currently Europe seems to be the toast of the world. Booming economy, good living index(7 of top 10 countries as per UN Human Development index are from Europe - Australia, Canada and Japan round up top 10, USA is 12th) and strong currency. What personally appeals to me is that they have about 4-5 weeks of vacation time(officially) and obviously that helps the quality of life too. I see Indians towing Americans line more than they probably should. I am not sure if what I suggest shall work, but I know for sure what will NOT work, and that is 2 million cars on Mumbai roads. Simple as that. xxxx
Bumper Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 I wouldnt go thru any broker. Each broker, takes a cut out of the deal (expect to pay atleast $50 per sqft for the broker, in some cases even $100 per sqft). Buy directly from the builder. You can pay the builder thru ICICI bank cheques on a monthly basis. Just keep all the copies of payments intact. It will be useful for repatriation when u sell the property. Beware of some pitfalls of investing in properties in India: 1) You can repatriate the sale of only upto TWO immovable properties (that you bought thru your NRI funds). 2) You need to hold the property for a min of 3 years for long term capital gains taxes. 3) When you sell, you can only repatriate your investment immediately, not the capital gains. You have to wait for 10 years to get your capital gains back. For eg: You buy a flat for 40L & 3 years later sell it for 60L, you can only get the dollars for the 40L back. 20L will have to wait another 7 years 4) Anything u inherit can be repatriated in full & immediately. In otherwords, if you buy anything & do a "clean gift" to your parents & inherit from them, the sale of that property is repatriable in full 5) Finally, you are not allowed as an NRI to buy any agricultural lands in India. Tho, you can inherit them
Guest dada_rocks Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Rapatriation means getting Rupee back in $, right ??
Ram Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 1) You can repatriate the sale of only upto TWO immovable properties (that you bought thru your NRI funds). Shouldnt it be the value of the property rather than the number ? I thought it makes better sense to put a ceiling on the value of the money got from the sale that can be repatriated , say for eg - 75 lakhs. 3) When you sell, you can only repatriate your investment immediately, not the capital gains. You have to wait for 10 years to get your capital gains back. For eg: You buy a flat for 40L & 3 years later sell it for 60L, you can only get the dollars for the 40L back. 20L will have to wait another 7 years Thats strange, so what happens to the 20 L in that 7 years ?
Ram Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Rapatriation means getting Rupee back in $' date=' right ??[/quote'] Yes.
Guest dada_rocks Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 http://www.99acres.com/K670948#price Ye lo Rajeev low price mein isse achchha specs nahin milanewala..
dial_100 Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Rajiv, I got a prop in India back 06. It was quite expensive. Gosh never imagined $ will dip down so much. It is quite a stress to make these payments, doesn;t matter however fast your property value grows makes no difference. You still need to make payments. For investments, I will recommend the smaller cities. Where you can pretty much get properties for Rs.400-1000/SF. Pay you off more handsomely in long run. But you will definitely need a care taker. That is the biggest danger in India...
coffee_rules Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 With the land grabbing mafia operating in most towns, it is scary to invest in land in India. I agree that it is wiser to invest in flats. What they show in 'Khosla Ka Ghosla' is reality and not funny anymore. But flats in inner city is costing an arm and a leg. I read somewhere that a prime location flat (only 2000 sq ft) in Mumbai went for 34 crores. That is like 7 mil $s. I guess that is equivalent of Manhattan. Isn't it? Decent flats in B'lore go for 80-120 lakhs (that is 1.2 crores) in within city limits.
Lurker Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Rajiv, I got a prop in India back 06. It was quite expensive. Gosh never imagined $ will dip down so much. It is quite a stress to make these payments, doesn;t matter however fast your property value grows makes no difference. You still need to make payments. And the good news is....the recession is around the corner :hysterical::hysterical: Read this massively uplifting news in TIME today Short-term retail optimism brings no cheer, though, to the economy's wise men, who talk mainly of an imminent downturn. "The odds now favor a U.S. recession," writes former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers in a newspaper column. "I'd put the number at about a 75% chance," says investing guru Jack Bogle on TV. "We are becoming more certain that the recession is either here or no more than two quarters away," warns Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg in a note to clients. :dance: Thanks mainly to the collapsing housing market, the volatile stock market, oil prices, the weak dollar and lots of nervous investors in far-off lands. Time to brace yourself for a lot of inconviniences. xxx
Lurker Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Decent flats in B'lore go for 80-120 lakhs (that is 1.2 crores) in within city limits. Indeed. And that is my major worry. It is impossible to afford housing in city limits. So what do you do? You end up buying houses outside the city limit. But what that ensures is a) City limit gets pushed b)Farm land and forest gets cut down c) You need to have a vehicle to come to the city to work. It is forming a vicious circle. The problem is two fold(in my eyes) - Government is not planning the boom and citizens dont give a damn. Double whammy. And what are you gonna do even if you buy that 75 lakhs flat? Do you seriously think that an area which has 75 lakh flats shall have school that charge anything less than 3-4,000 to educate your kids? Not to mention a lumpsome donation and all of that. I think it would very well encourage modern Indians to do what's happening in Japan, dont get married, or if you do then dont have kids. Okay those two are your Cheer Up news for Friday :hatsoff: PS: Bumper thanks for those info. :two_thumbs_up:
Bumper Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Shouldnt it be the value of the property rather than the number ? I thought it makes better sense to put a ceiling on the value of the money got from the sale that can be repatriated , say for eg - 75 lakhs. This is not negotiable. This is the law imposed by the Indian govt. But it doesnt make sense to put a cap on an actual rupee amt. 75L may look like a decent cap today. 20 years from now, it may look ridiculous. The idea is to restrict NRIs from inflating the local markets & cashing out quickly for which the 2 property limit is just fine. Thats strange, so what happens to the 20 L in that 7 years ? You can invest it & presumably repatriate the whole amount.
Ram Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 This is not negotiable. This is the law imposed by the Indian govt. But it doesnt make sense to put a cap on an actual rupee amt. 75L may look like a decent cap today. 20 years from now' date=' it may look ridiculous. The idea is to restrict NRIs from inflating the local markets & cashing out quickly for which the 2 property limit is just fine.[/quote'] So essentially I can buy a house for 50 lakhs in 2007, sell it for 1 crore in 2012, repatriate the 50 L then and rest 5 years later, but cannot do the same with 3 properties, each bought for 10 lakhs and sold for 20 ? Dont know how much sense it makes. I cannot possibly decide which one caused more inflation, tbh
Bumper Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 So essentially I can buy a house for 50 lakhs in 2007, sell it for 1 crore in 2012, repatriate the 50 L then and rest 5 years later, but cannot do the same with 3 properties, each bought for 10 lakhs and sold for 20 ? Dont know how much sense it makes. I cannot possibly decide which one caused more inflation, tbh Thats correct. You have to be smart about your investments. If you invest it multiple properties & wait it out, you can take out the investments from the most appreciated one.
Guest dada_rocks Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Indeed. And that is my major worry. It is impossible to afford housing in city limits. So what do you do? You end up buying houses outside the city limit. But what that ensures is a) City limit gets pushed b)Farm land and forest gets cut down c) You need to have a vehicle to come to the city to work. It is forming a vicious circle. The problem is two fold(in my eyes) - Government is not planning the boom and citizens dont give a damn. Double whammy. And what are you gonna do even if you buy that 75 lakhs flat? Do you seriously think that an area which has 75 lakh flats shall have school that charge anything less than 3-4,000 to educate your kids? Not to mention a lumpsome donation and all of that. I think it would very well encourage modern Indians to do what's happening in Japan, dont get married, or if you do then dont have kids. Okay those two are your Cheer Up news for Friday :hatsoff: PS: Bumper thanks for those info. :two_thumbs_up: Ak hi chara hai, back to basic: farming .. Ganvon ki or lauto..
Recommended Posts