Holy Crap!
-
Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
-
Contact:
Post
by Hermit » Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:35 am
Cormac wrote:Hermit wrote:Note to Cormac: I don't regard land tax, as applied in Australia, as theft.
I do, because of you follow the logic through to its end, it means that the state will eventually tax you for more than you paid for the land originally.
This implies that the state regards itself as the owner of your land. This negates any sense of private property.
Furthermore, since land itself is inert, and doesn't produce income, what precisely is the state taxing? The answer is income. This means that in order to afford land, you need to earn a lot of money independently of land. This acts to concentrate land into the hands of the wealthy.
Land TRANSACTIONS should be taxed. Merely HOLDING land should not.
Land tax, as applied in Australia, is a tax on wealth, and as such a progressive one. It is not applied to the land you own and declare as your principal residence. It does apply to the land you own on which you built your weekender and to any land you own for investment or other purposes. In the latter cases the cost of the land tax is simply passed on to the ultimate consumer. So, in Australia at least, is not applied for
merely holding land. It
is applied to land owned either as a luxury item or an item owned for the purpose of earning more money.
Additionally, lands owned by farmers and pastoralists are not subject to land tax because they are a protected species even though most agricultural and pastoral lands are owned by corporations with a capitalisation ranging in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
-
pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60742
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
-
Contact:
Post
by pErvinalia » Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:44 am
Ahh, scratch the last part of my last post to Cormac. I thought Hermit was talking about council rates, but I see he was talking about an actual land tax. Apologies.
Interestingly, I've never heard of a land tax here in Australia, and I've owned a number of investment and/or non-residential properties over the years. Is this only in some states, Hermit?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
-
Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
-
Contact:
Post
by Hermit » Sat Aug 03, 2013 4:09 am
rEvolutionist wrote:Ahh, scratch the last part of my last post to Cormac. I thought Hermit was talking about council rates, but I see he was talking about an actual land tax. Apologies.
Interestingly, I've never heard of a land tax here in Australia, and I've owned a number of investment and/or non-residential properties over the years. Is this only in some states, Hermit?
With the exception of the Northern Territory, land tax applies everywhere in Australia. You may not be aware of it in Brisbane because Queensland has not introduced that tax until 2010. Link to info
here.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
-
pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60742
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
-
Contact:
Post
by pErvinalia » Sat Aug 03, 2013 4:12 am
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
-
Cormac
- Posts: 6415
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Cormac » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:49 am
Hermit wrote:Cormac wrote:Hermit wrote:Note to Cormac: I don't regard land tax, as applied in Australia, as theft.
I do, because of you follow the logic through to its end, it means that the state will eventually tax you for more than you paid for the land originally.
This implies that the state regards itself as the owner of your land. This negates any sense of private property.
Furthermore, since land itself is inert, and doesn't produce income, what precisely is the state taxing? The answer is income. This means that in order to afford land, you need to earn a lot of money independently of land. This acts to concentrate land into the hands of the wealthy.
Land TRANSACTIONS should be taxed. Merely HOLDING land should not.
Land tax, as applied in Australia, is a tax on wealth, and as such a progressive one. It is not applied to the land you own and declare as your principal residence. It does apply to the land you own on which you built your weekender and to any land you own for investment or other purposes. In the latter cases the cost of the land tax is simply passed on to the ultimate consumer. So, in Australia at least, is not applied for
merely holding land. It
is applied to land owned either as a luxury item or an item owned for the purpose of earning more money.
Additionally, lands owned by farmers and pastoralists are not subject to land tax because they are a protected species even though most agricultural and pastoral lands are owned by corporations with a capitalisation ranging in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
My problem with this tax is the notion that luxury items should be taxable post-purchase and pre-sale. I mean, to acquire the "luxury" a person first had to earn money, on which he or she had to pay income tax. At the point of purchase, he or she will have paid some kind of transaction tax, such as VAT, and if and when they eventually sell it, there'll possibly be further taxes by way of capital gains on the seller, and potentially stamp duty and VAT on the purchaser. I see no logic at all to taxing mere possession, regardless of the fact that it may or may not be a second property.
However, if rent is earned, this is income, and should be taxed accordingly.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
-
pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60742
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
-
Contact:
Post
by pErvinalia » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:28 am
Yeah, I tend to agree. Seems like a shameless money grab to me. Tax it on transfer.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
-
Cormac
- Posts: 6415
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Cormac » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:45 am
rEvolutionist wrote:Yeah, I tend to agree. Seems like a shameless money grab to me. Tax it on transfer.
Did you just discover you might have a tax liability on the farm?
My commiserations.

FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
-
Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
-
Contact:
Post
by Hermit » Sat Aug 03, 2013 10:11 am
Cormac wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:Yeah, I tend to agree. Seems like a shameless money grab to me. Tax it on transfer.
Did you just discover you might have a tax liability on the farm?
My commiserations.

Don't bother.
Hermit wrote:Additionally, lands owned by farmers and pastoralists are not subject to land tax because they are a protected species even though most agricultural and pastoral lands are owned by corporations with a capitalisation ranging in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
-
Cormac
- Posts: 6415
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Cormac » Sat Aug 03, 2013 10:53 am
Hermit wrote:Cormac wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:Yeah, I tend to agree. Seems like a shameless money grab to me. Tax it on transfer.
Did you just discover you might have a tax liability on the farm?
My commiserations.

Don't bother.
Hermit wrote:Additionally, lands owned by farmers and pastoralists are not subject to land tax because they are a protected species even though most agricultural and pastoral lands are owned by corporations with a capitalisation ranging in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
What is a pastoralist?
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
-
Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
-
Contact:
Post
by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Aug 03, 2013 10:56 am
If the power to tax really is the power to destroy, then hell yes, tax the churches!
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
-
MiM
- Man In The Middle
- Posts: 5459
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:07 pm
- Location: Finland
-
Contact:
Post
by MiM » Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:01 am
Cormac wrote:MiM wrote:Cormac wrote:MiM wrote:Tero wrote:The tax on people where there is a state approved, lutheran etc., religion is typically 1% of income. In Nordic countries that is the only way to get weddings funerals etc done in church, to belong. They own most of the cemeteries.
It's a simple web based system to drop out. I had to ask them if I was still registered a Lutheran. They said no, I was deleted in the 70s.
Some fundie had thousands unjoining a month ago. She put church above law. And she is minister of justice.
Saying that the Nordic countries have "state approved churches" is maybe going a bit far, but yes, the entanglement between churh (Lutheran and Orthodox) and state in Finland is still far too strong. One example is that the state provides the church with the service to collect its fees through a church tax, that goes together with general taxation, typically a bit more than 1% nowadays (only members pay that). However the church actually pays the state some tens of millions every year for this service. And the churches are obliged to bury also non-members for the same fee as the members pay (they get an extra tax funding to compensate for this).
However, more importantly for this thread. Clergy has "always" paid taxes over here, just the same as anyone else, and the church pays taxes in roughly the same way as any other association.
And Tero, Päivi Räsänen is minister of the interior, not justice

It is only an overstatement if this tax is an opt-in not an opt-out.
If it is an opt-out, then the statement was bang-on.
It's an opt-in. The problem is that most parents opt-in for their infants when they have them baptised. Once you're baptised, you have to opt-out, and you cannot do that without both parents consent until you are 18. However, the situation is slowly changing, with less and less parents baptising their children
So it isn't really an opt-in. There is no circumstance in law of which I am aware other than this where a third party can bind you to a contract without your consent - and most certainly not when you're a minor.
Of course parents can bind their kids to all kinds of legal contracts. Let's say a kid owns a house that needs to get rented out. Then the parent (or legal guardian) will sign for everything, no need to ask the kids opinion there.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - Richard Feynman
-
pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60742
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
-
Contact:
Post
by pErvinalia » Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:15 am
Cormac wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:Yeah, I tend to agree. Seems like a shameless money grab to me. Tax it on transfer.
Did you just discover you might have a tax liability on the farm?
My commiserations.

Christ, I better not.

I suppose I should look into it, though.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
-
pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60742
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
-
Contact:
Post
by pErvinalia » Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:16 am
Hermit wrote:Cormac wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:Yeah, I tend to agree. Seems like a shameless money grab to me. Tax it on transfer.
Did you just discover you might have a tax liability on the farm?
My commiserations.

Don't bother.
Hermit wrote:Additionally, lands owned by farmers and pastoralists are not subject to land tax because they are a protected species even though most agricultural and pastoral lands are owned by corporations with a capitalisation ranging in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
It's not an operational farm. Although, it zoned rural, so perhaps that's the exemption.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
-
Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
-
Contact:
Post
by Hermit » Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:35 am
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
-
Cormac
- Posts: 6415
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Cormac » Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:20 pm
MiM wrote:
Of course parents can bind their kids to all kinds of legal contracts. Let's say a kid owns a house that needs to get rented out. Then the parent (or legal guardian) will sign for everything, no need to ask the kids opinion there.
In such cases, the children don't yet have control of the property. Instead, it is held trust, and the trustees will generally have powers to handle the property and its proceeds for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. Strictly, this is not the same scenario as binding a third party to a contract without their consent. Property won't vest in children until they are over 18, or they reach an age specified in the trust vehicle. At least, this is the case In Common Law jurisdictions.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests