Doctor Drivel wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And what the market says it will fetch includes the LVT
because ALL the landlords pass on the LVT to the tenants
because otherwise they wouldnt be making as much profit.

Any prospective tenant could not give a toss whether I am liable for Land Tax or not

All landlords are, thats how the rate are calculated in Australia.

No, a landlord may be paying anything between 0 (land value below $250K) and 2.25% in Victoria (it's a state tax).
http://tinyurl.com/6qjzrtl depending on the total site value of
properties they own other than their own home.

My own home is a high rise worth around $700K, land value on the
rates notice $41K (42 storey tower, nearly 500 flats on not a lot of
land) so you could own six like mine ($4.2m) and not pay land tax.
Or you could pay $600K for one time-expired house on a large block
in the suburbs and be paying it.

The Aussies need to get that right.

Nope, we've had it right for more than a century now.

True LVT is the "rental value" not the land value.

How odd that its called a land value.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

That is more reflective.

Its a bare faced lie.

LVT at 100% and no Income Tax is needed.

No one has ever been stupid enough to have just an LVT
and no other taxes at all anywhere that the voters get
any say on how long they will be driving the bus for.

More properties are owner/occupied.

They wouldnt be with just an LVT and no other tax at all.