I read this article in The Weekly Times yesterday.
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2009/05/20/80361_latest-news.html
Thought some of you might be interested.
I can see the arguments on both sides of the fence for this one. The vendor (ie farmer or speculator who has owned the land for a couple or more years) reaps a windfall because the land is now zoned urban. Generally speaking a farmer is exempt from land tax, but not capital gains tax, other offsets apply as it is also a business. So charging $95k/ha is a big tax grab esp when the land, as stated, is worht $300-400k/ha (I'm not aware of what subdivisible land is worth in these rural areas in Vic).
On the other hand, it is developers who generally pay the contributions for subdivision, provision of infrastructure, services etc, so why shouldn't it be recouped from the developer (possibly at the time of purchase)?
The public servant who thought up this scheme must be dreaming if they can't see this cost being passed on to the purchasers of home sites, regardless of how small the impost ie 14 sites/ha still equates to $7.5k (incl gst) to the purchaser.
New tax laws in la la land
The Government estimates land rezoned for urban growth is worth $300,000 to $400,000 a hectare. But farmers, other landholders and real estate agents say the infrastructure contribution is nothing more than an inequitable "vendor tax" that fails to recognise they cannot realise Mr Madden's "uplift" in value…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
