Well … it finaly happened

Land tax is calculated on the combined value of all taxable land, owned.
Less than 400k = 0.4 cent for each dollar EVERY YEAR
Less than 500k = $1600 PLUS 0.6c per dollar above 400k
More than $500k = $2200 + 1.4 cent above $500k

Of course the form says that you can “claim for an exemption for your own home” (how generous) and Mr Carr may just grace you with a “concession”. Thank you Milord, can I have a senior’s card with that?

Of course if you are as filthy as I am and happen to have a better than 3 bed brick venieer in the western suburbs, you are up for land tax on your own home as well. Cheers!

A clear case of a Robin Hood comunist governemt robbing the successful to give to … who was the last one? Papua?
Steve, I REALY need a puking smilie here…..

$10 increase per property may just cover the cost of this latest robbery.

Happy Christmas.

[angry2]
Marc

Ignoring the sarcasm…[baaa]…….It is my opinion that the rental market, as it is dominated by a vast majority of landlords that only hold one property, it is far too sheepish to take aggressive action to protect the income level necessary to keep investments viable.

RE agents also discourage rent increases, on the reasoning that a rent increase may force a tenant out and leave the property vacant for some weeks, and such loss may need a year to be recovered.

What the investor and his agent seem to miss all the time is that undervaluing the properties’ rent value, undervalues the property. It is that simple. Of course each case must be judged on it’s merits and there are special circumstance but in general think what sells better: Brick veneer 3 bed. cottage, rent $250 per week…..or…. Brick veneer 3 bed. cottage, rent $190 per week ?

I had tenants blackmailing the RE agent for $5 rent increase. I say invariably, let them go! I rather lose a few weeks rent and have a property with a higher rent tag, then a lower one and a tenant that is unhappy, plus I feel I make a small contribution to restore the market value. After all if an investment cannot make what it would in a term deposit, we are talking about a real lousy investment.

May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
Marc

But I’m wondering why you would not be satisfied with the ludicrous leveraged capital gains and favourable tax treatment of your investments.

Perhaps you fail to see property investment as for what it is, a business, like 95% of the rest of investors who are amateurs, and buy a second property for tax purposes.
Any other business would be up in arms if a new tax as this would be thrown at them regardless of how profitable they are.
The purpose of any business, as universally accepted, is making money. Not so property investing, where the owner apparently should be content with the “exorbitant” price increases engineered by property investors who plot between dusk and dawn specifically to make the poor first home buyer suffer. (This explains why the government rushes to distort the market with first home buyers grants).
Plus, as we all know, property investors are filthy rich people who don’t have anything better to do than squeeze the poor tenant out of his hard earned dollars whilst relaxing on their yacht decks smoking Cuban cigars.

Because the Government has targeted you for some easy tax dollars to fund worthy programs you seek to transfer that insignificant pain to your tenants, for who(m?) the pain may be more significant…most unchristian of you!

You throw around a few concepts here, in an attempt at humour. What you perhaps do not know is that humour usually is an escape valve of our subconscious to say what we really think but are afraid to say seriously. In other words what you joke about is usually what you really think.

The government has targeted property investors because they are percieved as a soft target, sheep, amateurs, in their vast majority easy target and will not react because most think they are doing fantastic with capital gain. They are not united and are usually ill advised by their agents.
The causes supported by the NSW government are more often then not, not worthy of spending my money on, whilst essential infrastructure is neglected. Example Hospitals where share responsibility with the federal government makes it a no go zone. Any improvement may be counted as the opposition’s win so let it die. Better spend it on building a park whilst releasing land for 100,000 further homes in the south west where roads and public transport don’t exist.

Your definition of land tax as insignificant for the owner and very significant for the tenant only shows how far removed from a business approach your mind is. If peanuts price increases by 10c and the Marsbars price goes up for that reason, no one would apply such logic that the owners of the Marsbar factory are rich enough to keep the price down and not hurting the poor kid that must come up with 10c more.

As far as Christianity being incompatible with good business practice, that is another fallacy. This distorted ideas usually accompanied by bible snippets, stem from people who usually have no affiliation with Christianity themselves but feel the target of criticism when Christian principles are promoted, and find this the proper way to retaliate.
Does not deserve a longer answer really.

May God prosper you always.[biggrin]
Marc