acottawa,
Afraid I will have to disagree with you using your own numbers. You're considering your 'profit' as half the difference between the value of the property with or without rail at the time of sale, not looking at the initial purchase price vs sale price in each scenario.
Owner #1 is better off by $5. Agree there because the property was owned before the rail came in and the increase is due to the introduction of rail.
Owner #2 without rail would have bought for $100 and sold for $120, an increase of $20. However he buys for $110, sells for $132, an increase of $22, but pays out $6 to the rail company, reducing his gain to $16. He is $4 shorter than if rail had not existed.
Owner #3 without rail would have bought for $120 and sold For $144, an increase of $24. Rather he buys for $132 and sells for $158.40, an increase of $26.40, but he owes $7.20, thus reducing his gain to $19.20. He is $4.80 shorter than if rail had not existed
Last edited by Charles5; Nov 14, 2017 at 8:10 PM.
|
Threaded Mode