Doctor Drivel drivelled
Rod Speed wrote
Doctor Drivel drivelled
djc 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.

Which is what I said.

In the long run either the tax is passed on or there is nothing to rent.

If the location is desirable there wil be a renter

But no one actually stupid enough to be a landlord there.

That never occured in Denmark.

They werent actually stupid enough to have JUST an LVT and no other taxes.

The landlord does not pay tax on his earning, so many landlords would want to rent there.

Nope, not when there is JUST an LVT and no other taxes, because then
the LVT would have to be immense to collect the same total in taxes.

snip drivel

Yours, yep.