Land tax | GTAMotorcycle.com

Land tax

MacDoc

MacDoc

Well-known member
Site Supporter
This socially destructive nonsense of every growing disparity in wealth will not end under current policies.

One nation has short circuited and the UK has an opportunity.....maybe even Australia under a Labour gov.

It's been attempted before ...even by Churchill...maybe the time is now...

How did Singapore achieve a home ownership rate of 90 per cent? Can Australia learn anything from it?
Click to expand...

www.abc.net.au

How did Singapore achieve a home ownership rate of 90 per cent? Can Australia learn anything from it?

Singapore's home ownership rate jumped from 30 to 90 per cent over two decades. Many of its land and housing policies align with the ideas of Henry George.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
MacDoc said:
This socially destructive nonsense of every growing disparity in wealth will not end under current policies.

One nation has short circuited and the UK has an opportunity.....maybe even Australia under a Labour gov.

It's been attempted before ...even by Churchill...maybe the time is now...



www.abc.net.au

How did Singapore achieve a home ownership rate of 90 per cent? Can Australia learn anything from it?

Singapore's home ownership rate jumped from 30 to 90 per cent over two decades. Many of its land and housing policies align with the ideas of Henry George.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Interesting idea in theory. It all comes down to numbers though. There are a lot of houses that already pay property tax of over $1000/month. Based on the way this is worded, that would need to increase substantially as property tax would need to cover all government waste. That also means tax would climb at the rate of government spending while income climbs closer to the rate of inflation (which is far lower). It saves CPP a bunch when everybody is destitute and chooses MAiD when they stop work.
 
I don't really understand what they mean. Increase property tax to 20% of the value, and (maybe) abolish income tax? Isn't the average GTA house price about $1M now? So even if you get rid of income tax, how many households make $200,000 just to be able to afford the average property tax, never mind other living expenses?
 
Relax said:
I don't really understand what they mean. Increase property tax to 20% of the value, and (maybe) abolish income tax? Isn't the average GTA house price about $1M now? So even if you get rid of income tax, how many households make $200,000 just to be able to afford the average property tax, never mind other living expenses?
Click to expand...
And that tax never stops. When you retire, income tax drops off substantially. High property tax increases above the rate of inflation in perpetuity.
 
It saves CPP a bunch when everybody is destitute and chooses MAiD when they stop work.
Click to expand...
and that's not where it is heading now?

Georgism, also called in modern times Geoism, and known historically as the single tax movement, is an economic ideology holding that people should own the value that they produce themselves, while the economic rent derived from land—including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations—should belong equally to all members of society.

Developed from the writings of American economist and social reformer Henry George, the Georgist paradigm seeks solutions to social and ecological problems, based on principles of land rights and public finance that attempt to integrate economic efficiency with social justice.

(Wikipedia) Georgism - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
GreyGhost said:
And that tax never stops. When you retire, income tax drops off substantially. High property tax increases above the rate of inflation in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

Poorly managed municipalities have an insatiable appetite for money...
My property taxes have increased approximately 4x what they were in 1996. They go up every single year and the city/region still fails to maintain roads, services are reduced and nothing ever gets better.
The attitude from city hall is pretty much "if you don't like it, move"
 
Relax said:
I don't really understand what they mean. Increase property tax to 20% of the value, and (maybe) abolish income tax? Isn't the average GTA house price about $1M now? So even if you get rid of income tax, how many households make $200,000 just to be able to afford the average property tax, never mind other living expenses?
Click to expand...
The simple answer is the housing prices/values will plummet because no normal person can pay that.
 
backmarkerducati said:
The simple answer is the housing prices/values will plummet because no normal person can pay that.
Click to expand...
And you have essentially switched to land lease with all land "owned" by the country and rented to occupants. You can buy land lease dwellings now. Price is far lower as land is the appreciating part and the dwellings are a depreciating asset.
 
I doubt something like this can work here, it's too sophisticated and takes too much planning and effort for our lame gov. They would just use it as a cash grab and waste it, or line someone else's pockets.
 
sburns said:
I doubt something like this can work here, it's too sophisticated and takes too much planning and effort for our lame gov. They would just use it as a cash grab and waste it, or line someone else's pockets.
Click to expand...
The thought of giving our government more money to burn makes me want to puke. The first thing we need is for the government to establish trust. Name one department that has it.

I don't know the Singapore mentality. We keep hearing about "In Scandinavia they do blah blah blah" We are not Scandinavia. We have a different history and ethnic mix. Look what happened when they allowed mass immigration. Their system couldn't handle it and they're trying to reverse the mistake.
 
Taxes raise revenue for the Government to operate, but as people don't like paying taxes they can also modify behaviour and/or markets. For now ignore the revenue aspect and how it is spent and just assume X amount collected now is maintained, just what is taxed changes.

What this is, an example of behaviour and market modification through taxation. Jacking up taxes on "land" drives down the price/value of the land. With any scheme change like this, some win, others lose. In theory no change in how much is collected for the country, what changes is how much people pay individually.
 
POWERMAN said:
On a slightly related note...just goes to further reinforce my belief that unless you are wealthy (to afford legal fees)...you dont really own anything lol.

Click to expand...
Some interesting points there. It seems like they want them out as it may be disturbing or cause damage but they plan to resell houses after. I suspect there is no temporary expropriation in law that they could use (eg. put you in another house during construction and do before/after crack surveys). There may be issues with insurance on vacant houses that may potentially be damaged though.
 
The simplest, most effective tax is GST. The whole tax system could be simplified to a single flat paid on consumed goods. Make more, spend more, pay more tax.

we could dump corporate tax, income tax, booze tax, carbon tax, fuel tax, property tax and then cut Revenue Canada to the bone.

At the end of the day there is only one taxpayer.
 
So Syncrude or Inco can take billions in profit from Canadian resources, money that leaves the country ... and NOT pay taxes on it?
But women should pay 13% tax on sanitary product


Sounds like a plan
 
bitzz said:
So Syncrude or Inco can take billions in profit from Canadian resources, money that leaves the country ... and NOT pay taxes on it?
But women should pay 13% tax on sanitary product


Sounds like a plan
Click to expand...
Buy a US dollar, pay GST. Catches the outflow of profits.

The profits distributed to shareholders in Canada are mostly spent, taxing the spend is where taxes are collected.

Yes, there will be a few situations like outflow of capital, exemptions on basic items, health and care services - these would need rules.

The point is it could be simplified AND those enjoying a bigger spend would always contribute a bigger share.
 
POWERMAN said:
On a slightly related note...just goes to further reinforce my belief that unless you are wealthy (to afford legal fees)...you dont really own anything lol.

Click to expand...
What is the fair value of something you don't want to sell?

The regular owners (that live there) will have to deal with double land transfer tax (municipal, provincial) is they buy something else. The cost of moving, the potential minor "mechanical" renos on another like property that may already be done on yours. Other improvements that cost money but don't add market value. etc.

Many of these homes are rental which means displacing renters but for the owners it means capital gains taxes on a forced sale they were not ready timing wise to make, lost rental revenue, and after those losses double land transfer taxes if they want to replace the income property.

What is afterwards the land is sold to a developer, well land value is now based on GFA and $PBSF, which is normally way higher than SFH value. Who gets that money?

So really what makes the owners whole?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom