There is a growing opposition in New South Wales to Land Tax. Firstly it falls on about 300,000 people at the present time and raises about two billion dollars a year. This week a meeting was held in Balmain to look at it and the following facts were revealed. It was first imposed in 1895 before the Commonwealth was formed and was abolished in 1906. It was reintroduced in 1956, and has remained ever since. Some discussion in this forum would be helpful, as there must be lots of people who have opinions on it. Cases of its unfairness ought to be aired.

I believe it is inequitable and as such should be abolished. It is totally unfair that people should be inflated into a situation where they are forced to pay a tax on an untaxed property, simply because the land values around them have risen. I know they say kill the old folks off first, but to slowly tax and worry them to death, with land tax, after they have been working hard all their life to accumulate some assets seems grossly unfair to me.

It would appear that it was supposed to be abolished and replaced by GST. This has not happened, and someone should know why

Land tax is one of the reasons why there is a shortage of housing.In NSW 37% of a house/land package is made up of Govt taxes and charges.Is it any wonder that we have have so much poverty developing?

If we are are going to have a land tax,why also a share tax or a tax on non productive enterprises such as banking or insurance?

Govts will always go after easy targets and they don't care how real economic productivity is affected.This is part of the reason for the mess we are in now.

Land tax is cruel in every way.

Remember, back when the baby boomers were being raised by their families, the 60's and 70's, there were far fewer single parent families, very little walfare support and these toilers scripmed and saved to privide a future for themselves so as they would not be a burdon on either their families or society.

So they have paid thier taxes, provided for their own retirement and now they are taxed every which way possible. Why? Because there are simply to many mouths to support and not enough dollars to support them.

Remember, in many cases the land tax is more than TEN TIMES as much per year than they paid for the property when they bought it.

Sometimes the rental income does not even cover the costs (land tax and rates) and these are properties that have zero debt.

The old saying 'work hard and you will be rewarded' is quite simply, 'A JOKE'

there is nothing in any constitution that allows for land tax

never the less we are not under constituted juristiction[it is a little known fact we are run by lawyers and bankers,..who run the same sams with impunity..[this elite group does as it will[it runs the two party system,makes illegal a plant[declares wars on drug users and bikies,but not on ursury or child molestors

2 cmillion children are raised without parents,the real styolen generation,where brits are taken from poor brits[and abo-origonal, and our own urban poor,to become servants with no conscience that serve the party loyalties,that they got exploited[perverted]by the child-molestors and ursurors running this scam,is debateable

that we are run by people with loyalies to the party machine,not the people[with loyalties to civil law under contracted juristiction,not the constitution should come as no suprise]

yeah its all unconsionable as well as unconstitutional,but we are made helpless because they run the courts and the jails,not to mention the public edication as well as private institutional ser-vices,..who fill us with lies,dumbing down the people to pay as we go[to pay tax on wage[thinking it income]..because we wernt ever told different

but they sheeple have been dumbed down[with mercury preserved inoculations and mercury in our teeth,heavey metal-fleurides in our waters and the mind numbing flerided tooth-paste,to get whiter than white teeth and a passive atitude

so they meekly pay as govt orders,they mindlessly feel something is wrong[but the fee-ling goes away when we drink the required dose of water or brush our teeth[or just take a bath..then go watch the boob tube[or get our annual flue shot]..or compulsory guards-us-ill and other mandated vacinations[and mind numbing perscribed medications and gulp down our overtaxed booze]

anyhow my fav cop-show is on tv,gotta see how the fictions on tv are getting on[who is the biggest loser?]watch the clever cops foil some crim,or watch the medical gods heal some sick actor

anyhow complaint does nothing,i suggest just get a flue-shot and watch tv then brush your teeth and go to bed,forget about it all,and back to work in 4 days..lol

Everyone complains about the weather but no one does anything about it, is a lament often cited; Could we be so bold as to say that its time we did something about Land Tax. There are a whole lot of things wrong with Australia but when we fix Land Tax, we cannot simply abolish it and leave a monumental hole in the State budgets. We are told the take is $1.999 billion dollars. That is a whole lot of money. How can we abolish Land Tax without abolishing State Governments as well. The answer is that State Governments are going to have to realize that they are not Sovereign governments, and that the late Lionel Murphy was right in 1984, when he said:

Our legal system is based on the principle that there cannot be inconsistent laws. This principle operates at federal and State levels and whatever the source of law (constitutional, legislative, delegated legislative or decisional (common) law). If these laws would produce an inconsistency, then one prevails; the other or others are not law, and are often described as invalid or inoperative. The supremacy between what would otherwise be inconsistent laws is resolved in a number of ways. For example, where two laws emanate from one legislature, the later prevails. Where they emanate from different legislatures, constitutional law provides that one is superior, and its law will prevail. In Australian constitutional law, there are two general supremacy clauses, one in the covering clauses of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (s.5) and the other in the Constitution proper (s.109). Another limited clause is s.105A (agreements with respect to State debts). Section 106 subjects State Constitutions to the Constitution; s.108 similarly subjects State laws to it.

If KR will simply open up the Federal Court of Australia and let them file a Constitutional challenge to Land Tax, and have the same court openly compete with the Supreme Court in New South Wales for business, it is highly likely that Land Tax will be declared illegal, and abolished. I guess that Nathan Rees will have cause to get angry again

Why shouldnt landowners be taxed? Especially rich and absentee ones.

mikk>>Why shouldnt landowners be taxed?
Especially rich and absentee ones.>>

a good question, as to why [because the land tax isnt legal [nor lawfull]..if you want to tax them then change the constitution,

note the other point made[re-divergent laws]where laws are divergent they fall under fed juristiction [and the fed constitution dont allow it either]

so no matter how good we think it is [its just not lawfull]
but no lawyer is going to change it because some lawyer wrote it
so its functionally legal,..lol its funny really [we dont even have constitutional law ,makes it more funny[because you non lawyer got no idea..lol

[the prost-cute-tution of the matter is as a claimed land-owner you fall under the powers of the act,..lol, because you fall under the act you use to claim your rights of landholding [because you applied to fall under the act by the documents you thought gave you the land ..lol, but it made you subject to the act [because applies means beg[your presumed you know what you begged[app-lied]for lol

its the main reason jesus said do not take oath
matt 5;3-48 ,matt23;16-24..james 5;12..[when you sign ANYTHING its an oath]do not take the mark [mean's dont sign your oath]

[subject means ...liable to the parts of the act that taxes 'landowners , as described UNDER the act...lol...[but its still unconstitutional]..legal but unlawfull, but you begged it by signing the papers those lawyers said to sign

[see in real; constituted law [and under common and even criminal law you need a victim to have legal standing[no victim no crime] ,but under statuted law you fall under the laws of con-tract, well you signed the contract when you applie

its the same reason you fall subject to those other legal [but unlawfull ] and unconstituted acts[you signede just joined the club [and are charged by violation of the acts [rules of the club you app-lied into

thus apply for a licence you joined the club that makes you subject to the rules of commerce on the road[see a vehicle is used to earn income from trade[same with licence is only required to do buisness[as you gave yoyr licence numbe4r you fell under the act[desp[ite no legal standing [you appliued to join the club..lol] thus are subject to the club rules

same paying tax [you begged]underr your oath to be a tax payer [you declared your wage income[but wage isnt income [but you signed oath it is..lol[it is presumed no one assumes a burdon, thuis no one tells you [but jesus tried, he clearly said dont sign oath [not on conm-tract nor any other [

but you thought lawyers know better, ha they are club members [servants of the courts ], to get a lawyer you attain the standing of imbisile..[a legal term meaning not capable of handeling your own affairs ..lol

just as these lands were took from imbisiles and lunatics [king georges very words to phylip, first commision..read your foundation documents]

but hey you latest tv drama is on go watch tv [its a vision you can be decieved into believing in], but its all fiction, but your lives appear to be fictions too..[you just think its all real]..because you dont know jesus tried to teach you, but you know better ...lol

Here we go again...

Peter the Believer objects to people paying tax "simply because the land values around them have risen".

If the land around yours has risen in value, so has yours: "Location, location!" And what did you do to earn that windfall? NOTHING. If the unemployed shouldn't get the dole without giving something back, why should you get a massive unearned capital gain without giving something back?

Then he wants to know why land tax hasn't been abolished and replaced by GST.

Well, for one thing, land tax encourages selling when values rise and helps to limit the rise; and the reverse when values fall. Thus it stabilizes the growth of land values around the long-term trend, and prevents bubbles -- if the tax is high enough. But it isn't. So speculators pump up bubbles, which burst, causing recessions like the present one. But property owners, instead of admitting that more land tax would have prevented the recession, use the recession as an excuse to cut land tax and thereby clear the way for the next bubble, burst and recession!

Arjay blames land tax for the shortage of housing.

In fact land tax makes it necessary to earn income from land in order to cover the tax. If the land is residential, that means building accommodation and offering it to tenants or buyers, thus INCREASING the supply of housing and making it more affordable.

Yes, too much of the price of a home is tax. But land tax is not one of the taxes that feed into prices. The real offenders include stamp duty, payroll tax, GST, and income tax on rent, all of which punish people for providing housing.

Why not tax banking? It depends. A tax on interest, for example, means higher interest for borrowers (but not for savers, because they pay the tax). But if the supply of money were absolutely fixed, a holding tax on money would be like a land tax: it would encourage people to put money to use in order to cover the tax.

[Continued ...]

[... Continued]

Why not tax insurance? We do; but we shouldn't, because that punishes providers of housing, which needs to be insured.

Why not tax shares? Funny you should say that: Google on "Tax relief for listed companies".

Then Arjay says the mess we're in is due to land tax, when, as I have explained above, it's due to lack of land tax!

Dear rehctub: Property investors don't provide for their own retirement. They recruit renters and first home buyers to provide for their retirement!

In a rational market, the value of land is the present value of the future rent stream NET OF RATES AND LAND TAX. So rates and land tax must take LESS than the land rent. So if the rent you actually get for the land plus the house doesn't cover the rates and land tax, then verily you have failed to develop the land to the extent warranted by its location and zoning. Land tax encourages you to do so -- or sell the land to someone who will.

"one under god" is mostly indecipherable, except for "there is nothing in any constitution that allows for land tax".

Under the Australian Constitution, the States have any power that is not reserved for or overridden by the Commonwealth -- including the power to impose land tax. And the Federal Parliament, under s.51(ii) of the Constitution, can impose any tax not proscribed in s.51(ii) or elsewhere in the Constitution.

But the silliest thing about this anti-land-tax jihad is that if a government's revenue is proportional to land values, the government has an incentive to provide infrastructure that increases land values for the benefit of the owners. But if the owners manage to prevent their tax bills from tracking their land values, they effectively say to the government -- i.e. to their fellow taxpayers -- "Don't build infrastructure, because we won't let you recover your investment!"

More at http://lvrg.org.au/ , http://lvrg.org.au/blog/2009/03/pure-poison-on-land-tax.html and http://lvrg.org.au/blog/2009/03/pure-poison-on-land-tax-part-ii.html .

Land Tax is a really fascinating subject as is the subject of land generally.

S 36 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969, in New South Wales says: 18 Edw 1 St 1 ( Quaia Emptores (because the buyers) c 1 and 3. 1290
Land held of the Crown in fee simple may be assured in fee simple without licence and without fine and the person taking under the assurance shall hold the land of the Crown in the same manner as the land was held before the assurance took effect.
S 37 says: All tenures created by the Crown by way of the alienation of an estate in fee simple in land after the commencement of this act shall be taken to be in free and common socage without any incident of tenure for the benefit of the Crown.

Now this raises all sorts of questions that require answers.

Firstly the meanings of the words used:
Assurance means conveyance, and S 36 must call into question the fees charged to transfer land in New South Wales and if it is right, then the land is the same as it was when first granted, no matter how many owners it has had.
Tenure: tenure is the word used to describe all land. Tenure means you never really own land, just a bundle of rights granted by the Crown in perpetuity. Freehold land is the greatest bundle you can own. Freehold was valued at about 40 years rent.
Socage: This is another fascinating word; it has Anglo Saxon roots where a soc was a plough. It means that the owner had a free and common right to plough the land, and reap the crop, and has been held in modern language to mean jurisdiction. It meant that the owner had a free right to do as he would with his land, without interference by the State.

One under God means that Almighty God actually owns the land, and the Crown is his agent. That was why since 1297, the right to have a jury find the true ownership rights was introduced

Mikk
Attituded like yours are one reason why so many kids will have no inheritance left to speak of.

You see as it stands, one should not try to better themselves by investing in property, they should invest in a bigger boat, or perhaps a caravan, or even both.

Travel the world, see the sights, live life like there is no tomorrow.

You see the system rewards those who do this, spend every cent and retire poor. At least then you get the pension.

Maybe this is 'big brothers' way of stimulating the ecconomy.

All good until we can no longer aford to support all the retirees.

So then they look at ways to collect even more taxes.

Where do you think it's going to stop!

The results of Land Tax are horrendous.

However it is not only Land Tax that is a bad thing, it is the presumption by a State government that it is a Church, that really rankles. Churches developed a way of claiming that they had a divine right to demand money from their richer members. Since it has taken on all the characteristics of a Church, like quadrennial elections, a central synod called Parliament , an Archbishop called a Premier, and lots of little Bishops called Ministers of the Crown, the State government in New South Wales has had to find ways to support themselves. Land Tax is one of them. There are lots of others like the revenue cameras, and the roving Tax collectors in blue uniforms, who carry guns nowadays.

The leaders of this Atheist Church, and greatest supporters are the lawyers who benefit most from its creation. They have their own private clubs called the Law Society, and Bar Association, which have a membership fee and a requirement for about $6,000 a year in insurance, however since any claim on that insurance must be pursued through the Courts, the insurance almost never pays, and fights vigorously whenever anyone has the gall to make a claim.

Land Tax is a tax on poor people, not on Land. It is a typical Roman Catholic type of government trick that has reduced most of Latin America into a two tier society. A rich society and a poor society with armed Police to protect the rich.

The central core belief of the State government church is that once a voter gives a vote to anyone every four years, they have no further part to play in the government of their society, and the State priests in all their Courts, the Judges and Magistrates have to blindly obey the dictates of whatever gang controls Parliament. Since it thinks it is Sovereign, like the Pope in Rome who came and partook of the bounty, it thinks it has a divine right to tax.

If you tax the landowners in society, you actually destroy it.

Sadly, it is a fact of life these days that if we remove one tax, it must be replaced with another. We have to feed all those public servants, don't we, and fund all their pensions.

So why pick on this particular tax for abolition? It only affects property speculators, after all. It is just another expense, and simply gets added to the rent.

But I had to laugh at this one - PtB, you are such an idealist!

>>Our legal system is based on the principle that there cannot be inconsistent laws<<

Ho ho. Ha ha, Hee hee. It must be the way you tell 'em, with that straight face of yours...

So let's have another chuckle, shall we?

Tell me about retrospective legislation, PtB.

We are one of the few countries in the world that countenances such an iniquitous concept. Something we do today, in full compliance with the law, can be made retrospectively illegal with a stroke of a government pen.

Yet it is a concept that has survived two separate legal challenges over the years.

Our legal system based on the principle that there cannot be inconsistent laws?

Tell it to the marines.

Poor old Pericles. Not only does he mock the late Lionel Murphy, who I so reverently quoted earlier, he also mocks the Parliament of the Commonwealth which makes it a law that there cannot be inconsistent laws. Tell it to the marines indeed. The case in which the late Justice Murphy expressed the opinion quoted so eloquently was Metwally, in 1984, before people like Pericles started spreading the nasty Furphy that Parliament is not accountable to anyone.

What has happened is that Pericles and his fellow unbelievers have convinced a very small majority of super powerful individuals, holding judicial offices in Australia as representatives of a small minority, that Parliament is indeed a substitute for Almighty God and their word is unassailable. Trouble is that there are nine of these parliamentary talkboxes in Australia , stacked with hundreds of politicians, a large number of whom are lawyers, trying to scam a very good living by imposing inequitable taxes on anybody who owns anything at all.

The old saying that if you cannot do, teach, may apply just as well to lawyers. If you cannot make an honest living as a lawyer, get into Parliament.

Now once upon a time lawyers were trained by an articled clerk system, but that was before the lawyers changed the rules. Before 1970, when they changed the way the Supreme Court does business in New South Wales to become a lawyer you needed to find a good solicitor, and do a course while working for him. He in turn was a highly respected businessman in his local community, and almost revered for his learning.

Most had a good personal library, with the mandatory Halsbury’s Laws of England, Third Edition or earlier on their bookshelf, and tried to give good sound advice to clients. Many of them gave free advice to landowners, because then when land was traded they got the conveyancing. Litigation was rare, and most disputes were settled by a couple of solicitors letters and a lot of common sense.

Land Tax is a bitch and should be consigned to the dogbox of history.