Something is happening in my life. I think I'm finding Tao. In particular, the Tao Te Ching. It's a book on Tao, written by Lao Tzu in the 6th century BC. 2,600 years ago.

I first found a conscious recognition of Tao last night, in a book I was looking at over at a friend's house. It had a few quotes that I really liked, which were attributed to Tao. I've since looked up some more Tao this afternoon, and discovered that it's a philosophy, a way of being, that really seems like a good way of being. Learning about Lao Tzu and Tao Te Ching has been a development of only the past hour.

I'm going to investigate this Tao business, and see what it means for me. Being a philosophy, I may start to focus on it and follow it, because it really sounds like me.

(A while after writing the above)

I thought I'd put in some quotes from Tao which appealed to me in my most recent wanderings on the internet....

This one made me laugh, considering what I wrote above:

When a superior person hears of the Tao,
She diligently puts it into practice.
When an average person hears of the Tao,
he believes half of it, and doubts the other half.
When a foolish person hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud at the very idea.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao

Am I superior? According to Tao I am, but I'm not. I like it.

Without opening your door,
you can know the whole world.
Without looking out your window,
you can understand the way of the Tao.

The more knowledge you seek,
the less you will understand.

The Master understands without leaving,
sees clearly without looking,
accomplishes much without doing anything.

Act by not acting;
do by not doing.
Enjoy the plain and simple.
Find that greatness in the small.
Take care of difficult problems
while they are still easy;
Do easy things before they become too hard.

Difficult problems are best solved while they are easy.
Great projects are best started while they are small.
The Master never takes on more than she can handle,
which means that she leaves nothing undone.

When an affirmation is given too lightly,
keep your eyes open for trouble ahead.
When something seems too easy,
difficulty is hiding in the details.
The master expects great difficulty,
so the task is always easier than planned.

I like Tao. I'm going to delve into it.

Now that I'm single again and not seeing anyone else at all, I've decided to remain this way for a while. I'm not going to go looking for any relationships with any women for a while. Instead, I'm just going to have a good time with doing my own thing.

If any women feel like joining me for a good time along the way, then that'll be fine but I won't be going out looking for it.

I think that after the ending of every relationship that's significant, it's good to just take time out, think about things, do your own thing without someone else being present or sharing your time with.

It's my time again.

I was around at a friend's last night for a cup of tea. While there, I watched a bit of tv that was on. First was 'My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance'. Second was Sex And The City.

Now, I don't watch tv at all. The above are good reasons why not.

My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance: a man and a woman come together to get married, and there's a prize of $1,000,000 if the woman can get her family to agree to the wedding and support her in it.

A million dollars for this woman to get married with the support of her family.

It was another example, yet again, of what I consider to be media conditioning of western society towards relationships existing only for the monetary benefit that's involved. Relationships are only newsworthy and notable if there's a lot of money involved.

Relationships = money. No money, no relationship. No money, not worth being with. This is the social conditioning that's occurring through the media, which conditions us to accept it.

Sex And The City: this episode was, apparently like many other episodes, about the main actress going out on dates with this guy. He was in his 40's, seemed very calm and sensible, mature, controlled, worthwhile. During the conversations I picked up on, she talked about how she had a friend who had been diagnosed with cancer. He said he had a friend with cancer who died as well. She said her friend's fine, he said his friend died. She called him insensitive to her feelings, and he said that his friend actually died. She told him that he wasn't listening to her, and he said she wasn't listening to him. She said her friend is fine, he said his dead friend's name was Sophie. She called him an arsehole and he called her childish. She said she's leaving, he told her she can get out.

I couldn't believe this attitude being so prominent in such a popular tv show. More social conditioning. The man isn't allowed to talk about his dead friend, because the woman's needs are more important than his, even though her friend's fine. Her ignorance and her childishness were incredible.

My friend said that he wasn't listening to her. I looked incredulous at her. Excuse me? She said that he wasn't very sensitive to her needs. I said what about HIS needs? His friend had died, hers was still alive and fine, apparently. She wasn't listening to him and yet accusing him of being insensitive to her.

My friend related to the feelings of the main actress of Sex and the City. I looked at her and said, I can see why you're still single too.



I never watch tv. I catch bits of two different tv shows, and I find sudden reinforcement in my beliefs about the media and western social conditioning of what relationships should be.

Who writes these shows? Women? What message are they trying to get across? That the best relationships are ones where there's lots of money invovled, and where men have to shut the hell up to be considered worthwhile?

I'll continue my habit of refusing to watch the absolute rubbish that's on tv.Women

I was around at a friend's last night for a cup of tea. While there, I watched a bit of tv that was on. First was 'My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance'. Second was Sex And The City.

Now, I don't watch tv at all. The above are good reasons why not.

My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance: a man and a woman come together to get married, and there's a prize of $1,000,000 if the woman can get her family to agree to the wedding and support her in it.

A million dollars for this woman to get married with the support of her family.

It was another example, yet again, of what I consider to be media conditioning of western society towards relationships existing only for the monetary benefit that's involved. Relationships are only newsworthy and notable if there's a lot of money involved.

Relationships = money. No money, no relationship. No money, not worth being with. This is the social conditioning that's occurring through the media, which conditions us to accept it.

Sex And The City: this episode was, apparently like many other episodes, about the main actress going out on dates with this guy. He was in his 40's, seemed very calm and sensible, mature, controlled, worthwhile. During the conversations I picked up on, she talked about how she had a friend who had been diagnosed with cancer. He said he had a friend with cancer who died as well. She said her friend's fine, he said his friend died. She called him insensitive to her feelings, and he said that his friend actually died. She told him that he wasn't listening to her, and he said she wasn't listening to him. She said her friend is fine, he said his dead friend's name was Sophie. She called him an arsehole and he called her childish. She said she's leaving, he told her she can get out.

I couldn't believe this attitude being so prominent in such a popular tv show. More social conditioning. The man isn't allowed to talk about his dead friend, because the woman's needs are more important than his, even though her friend's fine. Her ignorance and her childishness were incredible.

My friend said that he wasn't listening to her. I looked incredulous at her. Excuse me? She said that he wasn't very sensitive to her needs. I said what about HIS needs? His friend had died, hers was still alive and fine, apparently. She wasn't listening to him and yet accusing him of being insensitive to her.

My friend related to the feelings of the main actress of Sex and the City. I looked at her and said, I can see why you're still single too.



I never watch tv. I catch bits of two different tv shows, and I find sudden reinforcement in my beliefs about the media and western social conditioning of what relationships should be.

Who writes these shows? Women? What message are they trying to get across? That the best relationships are ones where there's lots of money invovled, and where men have to shut the hell up to be considered worthwhile?

I'll continue my habit of refusing to watch the absolute rubbish that's on tv.Women

I was around at a friend's last night for a cup of tea. While there, I watched a bit of tv that was on. First was 'My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance'. Second was Sex And The City.

Now, I don't watch tv at all. The above are good reasons why not.

My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance: a man and a woman come together to get married, and there's a prize of $1,000,000 if the woman can get her family to agree to the wedding and support her in it.

A million dollars for this woman to get married with the support of her family.

It was another example, yet again, of what I consider to be media conditioning of western society towards relationships existing only for the monetary benefit that's involved. Relationships are only newsworthy and notable if there's a lot of money involved.

Relationships = money. No money, no relationship. No money, not worth being with. This is the social conditioning that's occurring through the media, which conditions us to accept it.

Sex And The City: this episode was, apparently like many other episodes, about the main actress going out on dates with this guy. He was in his 40's, seemed very calm and sensible, mature, controlled, worthwhile. During the conversations I picked up on, she talked about how she had a friend who had been diagnosed with cancer. He said he had a friend with cancer who died as well. She said her friend's fine, he said his friend died. She called him insensitive to her feelings, and he said that his friend actually died. She told him that he wasn't listening to her, and he said she wasn't listening to him. She said her friend is fine, he said his dead friend's name was Sophie. She called him an arsehole and he called her childish. She said she's leaving, he told her she can get out.

I couldn't believe this attitude being so prominent in such a popular tv show. More social conditioning. The man isn't allowed to talk about his dead friend, because the woman's needs are more important than his, even though her friend's fine. Her ignorance and her childishness were incredible.

My friend said that he wasn't listening to her. I looked incredulous at her. Excuse me? She said that he wasn't very sensitive to her needs. I said what about HIS needs? His friend had died, hers was still alive and fine, apparently. She wasn't listening to him and yet accusing him of being insensitive to her.

My friend related to the feelings of the main actress of Sex and the City. I looked at her and said, I can see why you're still single too.



I never watch tv. I catch bits of two different tv shows, and I find sudden reinforcement in my beliefs about the media and western social conditioning of what relationships should be.

Who writes these shows? Women? What message are they trying to get across? That the best relationships are ones where there's lots of money invovled, and where men have to shut the hell up to be considered worthwhile?

I'll continue my habit of refusing to watch the absolute rubbish that's on tv.Women

was talking with Darlene by email today (yes, my ex of '99 - we're still keeping in touch with each other on a relatively regular basis) about property investment. She's been a real estate agent and has owned a couple of houses. I asked her if she had any tips for me in relation to property investment. Interestingly, her advice was, in relation to what I've learned, bad.

Many people see negative gearing as being something of value. However....

Negative gearing means offsetting losses in one area against income from another to reduce tax. An increasing number of Australians understand this from first-hand experience. Most commonly they are using losses from investing in residential property to reduce the taxable income from their job or business.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/30/...s&oneclick=true

It means that you're losing money! However, the losses you make can be submitted to the government for a tax refund. Negative gearing promotes the value of getting tax refunds, but the reality is that you're losing money on a house.

I don't know about Australia or anywhere else, but in NZ, I've learnt that negative gearing means the following: if your tax is 30% of your income, then whatever you submit as a property investment loss will only be credited back to you at 30% of what you submit.

So a $10,000 loss on a property will get you a $3,000 tax refund. This is promoted as a hefty tax refund! Woohoo!

But you've lost $7,000 that they don't talk about!

I learnt 2 nights ago how to negative gear without actually losing money. That, and other things I've learnt from a couple nights ago and over the past year, were included in my reply to Darlene. I decided to put it in here as well, just in case you can get something of value out of it as well:

I'm planning on NOT living in whatever I buy, and will only live in the house that I can pay cash for. I plan on buying cashflow positive houses, where the rental income more than makes up for the total costs of the house on a weekly basis, and gives me a weekly profit. I plan on buying 1 capital gains investment for every 3 cashflow positive investments (the capital gains investment can lose money, which will be covered by the cashflow positive investments).

Negative gearing can be done with a cashflow positive house through the use of chattels and fittings depreciation. These are costs which don't have to be paid, but depreciate on paper and cause a loss that can be claimed against. The on-paper loss causes a negative gearing situation to come into play and provide a tax refund, but in reality, the property is giving a positive cashflow each week. (Which means all cashflow positive properties, if done right, can be negatively geared in this manner.)

I don't know about Australian banks, but NZ banks will look at 75% of expected rental income to be considered in your mortgage application as your guaranteed income towards loan repayments.

I'm also looking at using equity in the house to allow me to get a loan with no deposit. If a house is valued at $100,000 and you can get a loan for 80% of the value (eg. the banks require 20% equity, usually as a deposit), then if you actually negotiate the purchase price of the house at $80,000, then you will get a loan for 100% of the price. The bank's happy because there's 20% equity in the house. Most people obtain that equity through a deposit, but if you create equity through a lower purchase price than the value, it's the same thing.

I'm going to work out a property investment strategy, and have it on this site. I'll add to it and update it as I get more information and even experience. As I progress, I'll stick to the strategy and use what I learn from the professionals that makes sense.



Negative gearing doesn't make sense when the sum total of your efforts means you lose money, and talking about a capital gains return only works after losing money for up to 20 or more years!

Why not have a cashflow positive house that's earning you a weekly profit from day one, and on paper can be negatively geared so that you get a tax refund as well! (Then you can use that refund each year to actually update the chattels and fittings!)

I'm going to do stuff that's going to make me money from day one, on an ongoing basis. Ultimately, I'm not going to pay a cent for any house I own. (Except for the one I live in, which will be paid cash from a house (or houses) that I sell. But still, considering that each house paid for itself, whatever cash I have to pay for a house will still be someone else's cash. Hehehe)

The more I influence myself with books and seminars on property investment, the closer I'll get to actually getting off my arse and doing something about it.

I went to a property investment seminar tonight, which went for about 3.5 hours. It was pretty cool, teaching all kinds of things about buying property, equity, taxation, companies, trusts, etc etc.

While I've been working on reducing my debt and improving finances this year, I've been inspired to try harder. Not sure how much harder I can try without causing undue suffering though. The biggest 'harder' thing to do is sell my car and buy a smaller/cheaper car and use the difference to get rid of some of my debts. I think that's looking to be my only option.

I haven't done it because I love driving it, but I guess I've got to look at the cold hard facts of what I want to do. The longer I take to actually creating change in my life, the more it's going to cost me. The quicker I go about creating change, the faster I'm going to benefit.

I just gotta do it. So I'm starting this week. I'm going to make a concerted effort to sell off all the things I don't need in my life, starting with getting rid of the rubbish I've accumulated. Anything I haven't used in 3 years is stuff I'm not going to use and I'm either going to bin it or sell it.

The BMW is going to be one of those things that I have to get rid of to reduce debt.

Creating change is the best way to bring about the changes I want, and that I need.

A quote was used in the seminar tonight which hit home to me. "Don't use credit to buy anything that doesn't make you money."

If it's not going to make money for me, then don't use credit. If it's going to make money and can pay back the credit as well, then go for it.

I've got to start being financially smarter, instead of just enjoying the lifestyle I can have with what I've got.

Some people have 'llife-changing experiences' that make them change their ways instantly, in terms of their financial management and what they plan on doing with their money. Me, I've just been plugging away at it for the past couple of years, not really that serious about it, but slowly chipping away at not only my own barriers of financial self-sabotage, but also at the debts I have and the way I use my money.

But now, the buck stops here.

The more I influence myself with books and seminars on property investment, the closer I'll get to actually getting off my arse and doing something about it.

I went to a property investment seminar tonight, which went for about 3.5 hours. It was pretty cool, teaching all kinds of things about buying property, equity, taxation, companies, trusts, etc etc.

While I've been working on reducing my debt and improving finances this year, I've been inspired to try harder. Not sure how much harder I can try without causing undue suffering though. The biggest 'harder' thing to do is sell my car and buy a smaller/cheaper car and use the difference to get rid of some of my debts. I think that's looking to be my only option.

I haven't done it because I love driving it, but I guess I've got to look at the cold hard facts of what I want to do. The longer I take to actually creating change in my life, the more it's going to cost me. The quicker I go about creating change, the faster I'm going to benefit.

I just gotta do it. So I'm starting this week. I'm going to make a concerted effort to sell off all the things I don't need in my life, starting with getting rid of the rubbish I've accumulated. Anything I haven't used in 3 years is stuff I'm not going to use and I'm either going to bin it or sell it.

The BMW is going to be one of those things that I have to get rid of to reduce debt.

Creating change is the best way to bring about the changes I want, and that I need.

A quote was used in the seminar tonight which hit home to me. "Don't use credit to buy anything that doesn't make you money."

If it's not going to make money for me, then don't use credit. If it's going to make money and can pay back the credit as well, then go for it.

I've got to start being financially smarter, instead of just enjoying the lifestyle I can have with what I've got.

Some people have 'llife-changing experiences' that make them change their ways instantly, in terms of their financial management and what they plan on doing with their money. Me, I've just been plugging away at it for the past couple of years, not really that serious about it, but slowly chipping away at not only my own barriers of financial self-sabotage, but also at the debts I have and the way I use my money.

But now, the buck stops here.