Property, like income, ought to be taxed on a progressive scale.

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Bic_Cherry, Dec 16, 2018.

  1. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Property, like income, ought to be taxed on a progressive tax scale.

    Property tax is like a egalitarian tax on wealth. As such, the highest property tax scale levels should EXCEED income tax scales.

    On a related issue/proposal from Singapore.

    All public housing (HDB) flats should NOT attract any property tax at all.

    This is because it is like SUBSIDISED healthcare is 'exempt' from GST vz government grant ("GST ABSORBED BY THE GOVERNMENT").

    Otherwise, how should Singapore recognise/ strengthen NS is NSmen pay exactly the SAME property tax as the foreigners who bullsh!t the government that their property is 'owner occupied' when they either keep it vacant as their holiday home or as investment property under their personal name (non corporate ownership) (just check their passports (of which some foreigners have a few): majority of these property investors do not spend more than a month in Singapore or even never at all (their lawyers handle the 'investment').

    HDB is SUBSIDISED public housing, so per pax pro-rated property tax should be ABSORBED BY THE GOVERNMENT (just like police, fire, ambulance are 'FOC' services , costs absorbed by the government because they are a necessary public good).

    Maybe one way to be fair to those who don't have enough $$$ to own HDB is to give out the pro-rated per pax average property tax as government grant like GST credits or GST waiver on hospital bills so that all Singaporeans receive the equavalent of the average property tax payable as property tax gift vouchers (the equavalent of GST vouchers); these vouchers can either be used to pay property tax of the property that the individual is staying in or else it will be deposited as CPF savings for medisave/ CPF special account savings.

    Thus, if the person stays in a rented HDB flat, then the vouchers can offset his rental because his landlord can use them to pay property tax (same registered address only), likewise if the individual is a child or relative staying as a family unit in a residential property be it public or private.

    For an example of a typical PUBLIC hospital bill where GST is covered by a government grant because it involved care in a public hospital ("GST ABSORBED BY THE GOVERNMENT"):

    [​IMG] pict from: https://www.clearlysurely.com/blog/...e-died-and-left-me-struggling-with-the-bills/

    At least when Singaporeans receive the property tax grant, they will be reminded that the country in which they served NS have recognized their contribution and will pay dividends for life by waiving their tax on the land they pledged teir life to defend but foreigners will not receive this benefit obviously.

    Currently, both foreigners (regardless if they actually reside in Singapore) and Singaporeans pay the exact same property tax although only Singaporeans are called up to perform NS.

    [​IMG][Letter to Today] NS a duty, not a job — thus no ‘salary’: Mindef
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  2. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,158
    Likes Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would like to see property taxes removed from all primary residences and raised dramatically on all others. Perhaps starting low or with a 'grace period' then scaling up the longer you own it to allow the affordable buying and selling of property, but in a timely manner. This to promote the proliferation of home ownership and dissuade the practice of hoarding land.

    Everyone should be able to have a place that can't be taken from them if they fall on hard times.

    Property values would drop, as would the cost of housing in general, and as this is a major dynamic within the economy as a whole, it would have to be implemented very slowly/incrementally to avoid shocking the economy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  3. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    48,188
    Likes Received:
    6,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Property taxes are local and state taxes.
    Each state and local can do what they want.
     
  4. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It should be progressive, at least in urban/ sub urban public housing areas etc where many people stay. Those who live in palacial houses cannot be exempted from any property tax because they can very easily reverse mortgage to pay whatever the tax.

    Since the property tax should also be progressive like income tax rates, those who stay in humble public housing will likely be taxed minimally since just like income, the living wage part is not taxed just like business revenue spent on operational costs and wages is not taxed. Only the company profits are taxed, likewise, the first few thousand in annual property value will not be taxed, which will only progressively increase as the property gets larger etc.
     
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,277
    Likes Received:
    7,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have any idea what that would do to the rental market? Investors would simply stop buying properties.

    Housing of choice is not a right. SHELTER is provided by the community, but there is no choice involved, and it IS conditional. It was ever thus, from the first 'tribe' to our modern western society.
     
  6. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,158
    Likes Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I dont see that as a bad thing.

    I didn't say choice housing was a right.
     
  7. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,158
    Likes Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I dont think anyones primary residence should be taxed at all.

    It sounds like you're trying to force more people to live more 'humbly'... why?
     
  8. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I'm just applying a PROGRESSIVE tax mo and the government will need the tax revenue too (we have zero natural mineral resources nor fossil fuels on tiny Singapore island).

    E.g. Singapore defence budget is mighty high, almost S$15 billion, which is 3.2% of GDP.

    Obviously somebody has to pay for this.

    Even in feudal times, there was Lord, vassal and fief.

    One cannot live in ostentatious opulence and still not pay tax on the luxury in a compact republic like Singapore.

    Maybe in a rural or lawless and deserted place yes, but certainly not in a cosmopolitan city where government budget is very high too.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,158
    Likes Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh you're only talking about Singapore?

    I dont know much about Singapore. In general, I don't support enforcing or coercing austerity. But Singapore does have a rediculously high population density. I spose at some point something has to be done, and perhaps you've reached that point.
     
  10. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,277
    Likes Received:
    7,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't think it's a bad thing if there is a sudden loss of rental properties? Obviously, you're not a renter. You may want to discuss your position with those who can't afford to buy.

    You said you think primary residences should be protected somehow. You did not say 'community provided shelter'.
     
  11. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,158
    Likes Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As rentals become less available and more expensive, homes for sale will become cheaper and easier to buy. That's the entire purpose.

    I also specified that any such program would have to be implemented slowly/incrementally to prevent sudden market shock.

    I wasn't talking about community provided shelter at all... I'm talking about the private residential market. I would also support a similarly goaled program for the commercial/industrial property market, but that's probably suited for a different discussion.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  12. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,277
    Likes Received:
    7,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    EXACTLY my point.

    Private residences are CHOSEN.
     
  13. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    31,432
    Likes Received:
    5,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there anything that belongs to someone else that you don't want to get your grubby mitts on?
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  14. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,158
    Likes Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently he's only talking about Singapore where the population density is insane and they literally have nowhere to expand. Its entire territory is dense urbania.

    Normally I agree with you- leave folks alone. But Singapore has to figure something else out or they're gonna be 'too many rats in the cage' syndrome.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
    Bic_Cherry likes this.
  15. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,158
    Likes Received:
    5,913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The current system allows property to effectively be monopolized, available only to the relatively wealthy. While no singular individual or organization has effective control, the result is still an entire class of people who are not able to buy a product- permanent housing. Those with no substantial expendable income are blocked from access by those who buy to rent to others. Virtually every social-control agenda ever devised seeks to create renters of The People as a means to leech off them.

    There are of course those who prefer to rent. I don't seek to eliminate renting from the economy and I don't think my proposed program would do that if implemented honestly. It would merely limit the ability of the wealthy to dictate the terms of housing to the impoverished.

    If there were cheap alternatives for sale, as is the case for all other commodity groups ('beater' cars for transportation, pawned/used electronics, etc), it wouldn't be an issue- poor people could afford crappy houses. But even crappy houses are so expensive they require a substantial bank loan, established credit and expendable income. I merely want to create a market where sub-par properties are available to sub-wealthy people.

    Even the hated UN recognizes the right to own property as a universal human right. I don't necessarily think that extends to real estate, but I do think it would be beneficial to any society to promote it that way.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
    Bic_Cherry likes this.
  16. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    31,432
    Likes Received:
    5,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is the US and he's extending his arguments to our system, and he clearly wants subsidized instead of paying equal for equal coverage
     
  17. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    31,432
    Likes Received:
    5,814
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Yes that is why the FED exists, to transfer wealth to the select few
     
  18. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    12,405
    Likes Received:
    3,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Won't that discourage saving?

    In other words, if I spend the money right now, I'll be taxed less than if I spend it in 3 years.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  19. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    12,405
    Likes Received:
    3,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    However, what if Singapore just applied some modified version of the Land Value Tax that Geolibertarians advocate so much?
    Create a deductible amount so that persons would pay no tax if the value of their property did not exceed some particular threshold.
    And apply the tax to the theoretical cost of land, not the buildings on it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2018
  20. jay runner

    jay runner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    10,903
    Likes Received:
    5,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Property, like income, ought to be taxed on a progressive tax scale.

    Property tax is like a egalitarian tax on wealth. As such, the highest property tax scale levels should EXCEED income tax scales."

    iirc it was Ohio that taxed homes on the number of closets in a house. Pretty soon most homes were built without closets and demand went up for German schranks and metal storage lockers.

    Taxation is a necessary evil that produces unintended consequences. It should be kept to a minimum.

    You can tax the hell out of yachts, but boatyards will close and the people who build yachts for a living will be out of a job -- drawing out of the US treasury instead of putting into the treasury.

    It's always been people richer than me who employed me and paid me money. I'm still grateful because I was born a po boy with nothing coming to me and nothing owed to me in this world.
     
  21. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Nope, my proposal is designed to be suited for a CROWDED cosmopolitan city like Singapore.

    The philosophy behind a progressive tax system is to achieve unity, resilience and cohesion within a republic, society/ a community.

    What I have just said obviously will not apply to a deserted or god forsaken region where there is nonsense of community and where the law of the jungle is the law that is in operation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018
  22. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Guess it is all a balance, between income tax and property tax and GST (/VAT).

    In general, property tax scales should use income tax scales as a guide and even as a form of CONSUMPTION TAX, is favourable to GST because physical properties can be more progressively taxed to ensure equitabity.

    But all these taxes must be calculated and designed in RELATION to each other.

    In any case, one can still save tax free in cash, gold, equities, or even bitcoins which are all in general tax free.
     
  23. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Currently, Singapore properties are taxed based on annual value or the approx annual market rental value of an unfurnished residence if the unit were rented out.

    However, despite reforms towards being more progressive in measure, the property tax charged is still not as progressive as the income tax scales.

    The property tax scales should be extended to be fully progressive before the GST is considered for increase. However, the Singapore government is placing the cart before the horse and making poor people even poorer instead.

    ============
    More details as follows:

    PAP should not bully poor people by increasing GST in Singapore.

    Property Tax is really so PEANUTS in Singapore, PAP should stop exploiting poor people in Singapore to reward rich people.

    Really tiny peanuts (mediocre) property taxes collected in YA2017 of puny S$4.4 billion, even by Emeritus Snr Minister Goh Chok Tong and his wife standards https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...l-pay-and-defence-budget-at-grassroots-event/ :
    [​IMG]

    However, the amount of GST collected was already shockingly high at S$11.1 billion; and GST is a regressive tax mind you that.

    [​IMG]pict from: https://sbr.com.sg/economy/news/singapore-tax-revenue-68-502b

    For most Singaporeans, property is a measure of wealth (Annual GST credits and hospital means testing is based on residence property annual value). However, many Singaporeans are just scraping a living to get by.

    The large amount of wealth (relative to a tiny income contribution to GDP fraction) just sloshing around in Singapore is evidenced by the fact that wage share of GDP is just a low of approx 42% as at 2016:
    https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/getting-the-picture-right-on-wage-share-in-singapore
    [​IMG][​IMG]

    Property tax is more akin to a tax on capital/ wealth, which should be the focus of an egalitarian government but PAP seems to choose to protect the rich at the expense of the poor by not increasing property taxes through progressive taxation but instead raising GST to 9% by 2021 https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...ed-from-7-to-9-sometime-between-2021-and-2025 , deceptively using Scandinavian rates of 25% VAT as reference to hoodwink Singaporeans into acceding when there are hardly any comparable welfare benefits in Singapore which are the norm in Scandinavian states.

    Wouldn't the greater wealth divide in Singapore be better targeted by increasing property taxes in a progressive fashion using progressive personal income tax scales as a guideline? As of 2017, property tax collected is REALLY MEDIOCRE AND PEANUTS because at $4.4b, it is only 39.6% of the $11.1 billions in GST collected.

    Even raising commercial and industrial property tax is unlikely to signifantly increase costs of living that much because poor people will have the discreation NOT to shop at opulent and expensive central locations like orchard road or Marina Bay Sands area but travel out further to warehouse and factory outlet locations.

    TAXES ON WEALTH (/ostentatious consumption like palacial residences) SHOULD AT ALL TIMES EXCEED TAX RATES ON INCOME, since wealth is afterall an accumulation of EXCESS (superfluous) income. Cash wealth cannot be taxed because it can be hidden in bitcoins etc. However, all Singaporeans serve NS for no salary to defend land, as such, those who live in big and opulent properties (some on >50,000 SQ ft FREEHOLD land and worth >S$93 million https://www.edgeprop.sg/property-news/most-expensive-good-class-bungalows-sold-singapore-2018 ) ought to shoulder the majority burden of the SAF budget to protect the value of their properties which run into many millions of dollars as compared to leasehold HDB flats.
    [​IMG][Letter to Today] NS a duty, not a job — thus no ‘salary’: Mindef


    It is only decent for the PAP to raise GST after the amount of property tax collected is in excess of the amount of GST collected and at no time should the amount of GST collected ever exceed the amount of property tax revenue collected by the government of Singapore.

    For now, since the salary contribution to GDP is approx 42% with wealth (earnings from rent) contributing the other other approx 58%, I would like to propose that target total property tax collection should be 58/42* $11 billion= S$15.19 billion, a $10.79 billion margin of increase over the current puny $4.4 billion collected.

    PAP must exhaust the increase in property tax on rich towkays in Singapore before fleecing or scamming the poor people in Singapore.

    Lastly, PAP pls be aware that nobody will respect those who bully the weak and those who cannot defend themselves, no matter how much u earn. Respect is earned and not given:
    "If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity."
    - MP Lim Wee Kiak apologises for comments on pay
    [​IMG][IMG URL]

    PAP, SHAME ON YOU.
    You BULLY and COWARD.
    ==============

    Reference:
    [​IMG]

    Property tax should be tiered using the following income tax scale as guide:
    [​IMG]pict source: https://www.3ecpa.com.sg/resources/singapore-taxation/singapore-personal-individual-income-tax-rate/
    All principal amount tiers may be shrunk by multiple of approx 4 and the respective tiers be taxed according to income tax tiers in a progressive manner: e.g. the first $5,000 in annual value is zero rate tax. The first $80,000 AV attracts $11,138 property tax, thereafter it's 22%.

    ===================
    PS: There are approx 2800 good class bungalows (GCB) in Singapore (with explicit laws to restrict kids and poor people from trespass into the vicinity), "The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has opted to gazette Good Class Bungalows GCBS with 39 areas protected. The explanation for this was to protect the high environmental quality of these established massive bungalow areas from the intrusion of more intensive forms of housing like semi-detached or patio houses." https://www.goodclassbungalows.com.sg/about-gcb/ the average price of a GCB is S$21.3 million according to https://dollarsandsense.sg/heres-salary-need-earn-afford-homes-singapore/ and described in the table below:
    Table showing Singapore Housing Prices by type and salary requirements for approved bank loans.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018
  24. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Property tax like income tax is a tax of agression, and should be outlawed if we were actually following the Constitution.
     
  25. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,277
    Likes Received:
    7,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They're not, in many nations. They're not taxed in my country.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.

Share This Page