In message , Rod Speed
writes
Doctor Drivel drivelled
Andrew May wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Djc wrote

Of course he dosn't, but you do. Unless you are very altruistic
the rent at which you are willing to let that property will take
into account your costs of ownership, which
includes any tax liability. If the market won't pay that price
then you have a bad investment.

The price at which I am willing to let it is irrelevant. My agent
says, using his knowledge, that it will let for $300-320 and
nothing I can do will change that. If I decide I need $350 because
of current interest rates, tax rates etc and advertise at that
price it will just stay empty.

What the tax regime can control is not the rent, but my willingness
or otherwise to stay in this market by making my return greater or
less as compared to alternative investments.

Now imagine the govt introduces a rental property tax of, let's say $100.

A rental tax? Not very bright. A reclaim charge on the rental "value"
of the "land".

No such animal.

In an apartment only the landowner pays.

Wrong, as always.

He will push some onto the apartments, but not all.

Wrong, as always.

If the block is commonhold, then say 100 flats, then the LVT on the
land is split by 100.

If the rental value per ann. drops then the LVT drops,

Nope, the LAND VALUE hasnt changed.

conversely if it is raised then LVT rises.

Nope, the LAND VALUE hasnt changed.

The market dictates the level of LVT - self regulating.

Nope, the LAND VALUE hasnt changed.


FFS are you basing it on LAND VALUE or RENTAL VALUE or the LAND
Make your ****ing mind up.
--
hugh