What's the highest Tax bill you pay in ONE state only?

What's the highest Tax bill you pay in ONE state only?

  • $0-1,000

    Votes: 7 25.9%
  • $1,001-2,000

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • $2,001-3,000

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • $3,001-4,000

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • $4,001-5,000

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • $6,001-7,000

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • $7,001-8,000

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $9,001-10,000

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • $10,001-12,000

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • $12,001-14,000

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $14,001-18,000

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • $18,001-22,000

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • $22,001-30,000

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • $30,001-50,000

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • $50,001-100,000

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • $100,001 >

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • Total voters
    27
This is one of those polls where numbers mean nothing. Everybody's situation will be different, but I just want to get an idea at what point people stop buying in one state due to the dreaded land tax bill.

Only those with Resi IP's answer this poll please(Or those with commercial, exclude these props, as you will probably already have a land tax bill over $20k if it's a biggy and will distort the numbers).

My dilemma. All my IP's are in Vic. If I buy one more IP in Vic, let's say land value(Not house value) at $350k, my land tax bill will hit $6k per year. I'm quite heavily negatively geared, as I am going for growth long term, but paying $6k every year to the Tax man is a waste, let alone eating away my holding costs. Some argue it's the cost of doing business and that's cool when you're raking it in, but I'm still in acquisition mode, so throwing money away when it can be better spent elsewhere makes more sense(I think). To be honest, I don't know whether $6k is chook feed or whether it's a lot and of course, this will be different to everybody, so would love to hear what others think.


As I said, this poll is relatively meaningless, however, if enough people vote, we may see a trend as to what most peoples thresholds are before moving into other states, different investments, etc. Remember, this is not a combined land tax bill for all states, just the highest Land Tax bill in the one state where you own IP's.
 
Bludger, what happens down the track as the land value increases? Your land tax bill will only get greater. Some people start looking interstate when they get close to the increased rate threshold. I'm of the believe that you need to start thinking about looking interstate well before that time.

Gools
 
The Bludger,


Perhaps start up a new legal entity for each property purchase, such that the compounding effect that the relevant SRO applies to Land ownership doesn't kick in.
 
The Bludger,


Perhaps start up a new legal entity for each property purchase, such that the compounding effect that the relevant SRO applies to Land ownership doesn't kick in.

Yep. Although with no exemption threshold in many states, such impost starts at ground level, however it can still be less than the cumulative punishment delivered when in only one name or entity as Dazz mentions.

Issue is also for most average investors attempting to get ahead and accumulate resi IP's (where this most levied against the horrible proactive investor who is trying to get ahead) at the prices Bludger is mentioning, the gearing losses needing to be quarantined reduces servicibility as trust losses need to be funded by after tax dollars from probably stretched and non deep pockets.

Interstate foray helps spread the love around a bit and provide exposure to other markets dynamics. That's what led me out of Vic and I am glad I did :)

Bludger, six grand, whilst seeming significant to you, is nothing (for now).....wait until the compounding effect of a few more years kicks in.

I just harvested one in Melbourne whose land tax was 20 % of the annual rent :eek: and now my load in Vic will be (reduced) to just over $10,000.

Then again one could buy dirty tin boxes or sky floor plates and have those costs borne by the guest being accommodated in those assets, eh Dazz ;)

I am working at one of those acquisitions in the future. This impost was originally a wealth tax to prevent land barons from hoarding land (for more gain long term) and to release subdivisions as our metro cities were being developed and population increasing. Now it a state tax grab. On a single holding basis, I'd grin and bare it, however the cumulative load when an investor jumps a couple of echelons and tiers according to their tax tables, is punishing in the extreme.

A national land tax that Henry was looking at would have been on a single holding basis APPARENTLY :rolleyes: however that could always be changed later on to be of a cumulative nature as the current states have it.

Bludger, I would look interstate and/or buy some comm assets, excepting retail. Landlord still pays land tax there. :(
 
Top