Land tax is neither simple nor equitable. It puts Dracula in charge of the blood bank. Who determines the 'value' to be taxed? The only time anything has a monetary value is at the moment of exchange of ownership of goods, services, property or labour. If government prints the money to facilitate commerce, unless the money supply matches the market value of the goods, services, property and labour exchanged, then we have either inflation or deflation. A simple check of the difference between the so-called rateable value of your house compared to the market value of the house exposes this fraud.
Another flaw in the Land Tax argument is that land is 'fixed in supply and completely immobile'. High-rise buildings, land reclamation and release of land from ownership restrictions are some examples to expose this myth. The desert can be renewed or poor farming practices can turn once-fertile fields into a desert.

The most equitable way to fund government is a simple, low, predictable, broad-based charge for the use of money in the exchange of goods, services, property and labour. Ref We support fair tax <http://like2percenttax.com.au/>

I agree, Land taxes don't work.

we have an ongoing argument with the state govt and local council in regards to the value of our property, In 2012 it was valued at $130,ooo (country property), In 2013, a "government" valuer walked around our property and said it was worth $500000!, so naturally rates, levies, and taxes went up four fold. (our property has no sewage or bitumen road)

We protested and paid at our expense an independent valuer who valued the property at $120k. But, no the govt got the valuer general to value the property and they said $140k. So, the minister dismissed the valuation of his own department and said the property should be valued against Sydney prices (the land is on the Yorke Peninsula in South Australia) and said it stays at $500k.

We refused to pay the increase and after 18 months and many legal threats and us getting publicity in the papers and TV and Radio, the Lands Minister decided to drop the value back to $130k.

So, I agree, a land tax would not work as it depends on someone with no knowledge deciding on a value.

Imagine if instead of the GST, Howard government had introduced a broad based land tax: house prices would have risen far more slowly, the cost of living would be lower, the RBA wouldn't have to be so cautious when cutting interest rates, and we wouldn't need those restrictions on foreign ownership of land and housing!

Unlike John's "fair" tax, land tax wouldn't be a drag on the economy. But the valuation process would need to be fair and transparent; the situation kirby483 describes is a disgrace and should never be allowed to happen again.

As long as the people doing the valuation are honest and competent, having a land tax is the fairest possible tax. It's introducing the tax that's the problem. To avoid unduly disadvantaging the people who've already bought property, it would have to be phased in very slowly with plenty of notice. Which effectively requires a bipartisan consensus which would be difficult to get for something so controversial.

BTW John, high rise buildings don't increase the supply of land, though the potential for high rise buildings can increase the value of land. Land reclamation does increase the supply of land, but not significantly as the process is expensive and there are significant technical obstacles.

Risible rubbish from go to whoa!

I know of two brothers raised in exactly the same environment, and inculcated with the same common values.

One fell into bad company and spent most of his life hissing up against a wall; and at the end, became too sick to support himself.

Ending his life as someone lingering on for decades, supported only by the kindness of gullible fools and or the public purse.

The other on the other hand, remained frugal with his income and as and when he could, bought a block of land, and given modest occasional profit; eventually accrued enough to put a down payment on a house, which he then worked dawn to dark in a veritable gut-bust to pay off!

And so arrived at retirement with a home of his own and a modest self supporting nest egg, taken as a proscribed but modest pension.

So, the first one who squandered all his opportunities gets off scot free and entirely reliant on others, is welded to the public purse even for his burial.

Whereas the other brother, who has not asked it for anything; just contributed every day of his life, is hit with repeated land tax, due to the fact; they were his only available stepping stones to true independence.

The Authors take is completely off the wall let alone the (fair and equitable) chart.

People want their own homes for varied reasons, none of which could be described as an obsession; any more than any of the other necessities of life!

And ought to be made more affordable instead of forcing prices even higher; by dint of risible rubbish like this!
Rhrosty

Sorry Aidan, what we don't need is yet another layer of complexity added to the tax act.

What we need instead is a return to simplicity!

And please don't fall for the line that simplicity equates to simplistic!

IT DOES NOT!

A very wealthy S.A. business man I heard addressing a public Audience said this. "true genius resides in solving complex problems with simple solutions". And he made a veritable fortune following his own advice!

Let's face it, the simpler the solution is, the more transparent it becomes, and with far less being able to go wrong with it.

Therefore, a simple expenditure tax taken as the only tax necessary or taken, will still extract some (true market value) money from land sales as and when it changes hands; and given the tax is unavoidable, on each such occasion.

The more you deal the more you pay!

And given the money is collected and transferred electronically overnight; via the banking fraternity and their main frames, in exchange for (a licence to virtually print money)banking licences.

And therefore in a fee free paradigm that could add as much as 40% to the net; given we would have eliminated the 40% or so, which is the current cost of just collecting tax in the first place?

And free from those fees, create a huge new surplus not needing things like a regressive GST, or an even more regressive land tax, just to make good some virtually self imposed shortfall/structural deficit!

Think, some large tax avoiding multinationals have annual budgets larger than many a sovereign nation! And as providers of (now essential)foreign capital, many may have us by the short and curlies, due to that very same (increasingly intolerable) structural deficit!
Rhrosty

As I said, Rhosty, to avoid unduly disadvantaging the people who've already bought property, it would have to be phased in very slowly with plenty of notice.

And rather than distorting the economy to provide one opportunity to make money that the rich can take far more advantage of than the poor can, it would make more sense to give decent benefits to pensioners. If someone refuses to take them that's not our problem; we should not be disadvantaging ourselves just so someone can brag about his true independence!

What we really should be doing of course is ensuring there's ample opportunity for everyone to make a decent amount of money throughout their lives. But that opportunity should be based primarily on the work they do rather than what they choose to buy. They may make good investments, but it would be silly for us to ensure that land remains a lucrative investment.