"Yeah right"...I can hear John say from way down here on the mainland...aint no way in hell Key will go with this load of old BS. The land tax is dead. Ditto cgt. WFF stays put. Expect a tinkering to end the property tax rort once the National Brethren have sold down their holdings. Look for a deluge of spin about green shoots and happy days round the corner. Don will be Sir Don within 30 days. The closet of lost plans in the Beehive basement has been opened ready for the final TWG report to be tossed in and lost for all time.

Don't worry too much AC...for a start there will be no land tax....it will be the rise in mortgage rates and unemployment in 2010 that triggers the final dive in residential property prices. Oh the govt will bust a gut to prop up the bubble but once the peasants get a sniff of the sheriff turning up in the market...they are out of there man. Don't get trampled in the rush.

Shaw seems to have been working quite hard to rubbish this idea. In several cases he is scraping the barrel. I particularly liked "..a holiday home on the coromandel would be impacted but not one the gold coast" . Er yes, the gold coast being in AUSTRALIA and hence not part of NZ sovereign territory. So what?

Anyway, I think I can help him out with answering his questions:
1) Local authorities pay rates, they would pay land tax too.
2) All Foriegn owvers including governments would pay land tax. Tempting to increase the rate for non-residents too.
3) Government owned land would betaxxed just as government/soe employees are taxed.
4) Charities pay rates, they would pay land tax too.
5) NO! Land tax is a tax. Taxes are not in themselves tax-deductible! We're supposed to broadening the base here not drawing pretty circles in the sand....
6) RV system means QV already have extensive valuation system set-up. Zero marginal cost as Grimes notes. Dispute resolution procedure is well established and robust.
7) Retirees: Finally a proper question. Much as i dislike arbitrary exemptions I think the easiest thing here is superannuitants should recemve exemption from the land tax on their residential home only as part of the state pension package.
8) Lease renegotiations? No - you've signed a contract, get on with it. But it might be sensible give everybody 12 months warning before imposing this to let people get their affairs in order.

See not that hard Mike - and I'm not even a highly paid tax accountant like you....

"0.5% land tax could reduce land values by as much as 15%" - this is not a negative.

Let's look at the cons a bit more closely:
* A wealth tax on all landowners -- so? an income tax is a tax on all earners of assessable income, so what's the difference?

* Would hit land values and discriminate against development of land (ie conversion of sheep to dairy) -- er no, if unimproved value means unimproved value, then improvements won't be taxed or discouraged

* Leaves other forms of capital untaxed, including art work, jewelry, boats -- land is not capital, it is capitalised future ground rents.

* Doesn't change residential property tax advantages directly -- so?

* Valuations may penalise those choosing "˜alternative' land uses to those around them. (eg Beef farmer in conversion area, golf courses in residential area) -- again, not if the valuation is the unimproved value

* Big impact on asset rich/income poor retired people -- this is an over-rated disadvantage. If investors and owners know the tax is payable, they will need to budget and arrange finance accordingly, just as they do with local government rates.

* Landlords may want to increase rent to cover increased costs -- no, the economic incidence of land value tax is landowners. This is the point of land value tax vs. taxes on improvements, labour, capital, consumption etc.!

* Land tax could drive some highly geared land owners and land bankers into insolvency -- true, the introduction should avoid a steep fall in umproved values. However, most land value is residential, and inflated by residential land supply restrictions (i.e. zoning and metropolital urban limits), and banks and investors should not be protected from this correction that is needed.

Yes, another good idea that is probably left alone. It is supposed to encourage productive land use but we really do not need more uncertainty.

The problem is the total cost of government not how it is funded. That and the overall level of debt in the economy.

RW is bang on. Until govt stops with the splurging on other peoples money and yet greater debt..we aint going nowhere but dooooooown the hole.

So if local bodies are included they will look to recover the cost....as sure as the sun comes up in the morning up go rates as well.

Why we need to add land tax back again?
1) We can kill our economy at no time and make sure there is a decade slow down. Who cares?
2) The rent will be increased quit a lot, so we have more people can not afford housing.Who cares?
3) We create more unequal tax system with lots of exceptions. Who cares?
4) More KIWIs will invest money overseas to avoid tax, more people lose job in NZ. Great!
5) Less houses will be built, may be more apartment. Ugly.

My suggestion is to kill all the rich so we all don't have bread to eat.

@Joe Blog:

1) It wont kill our economy.

2) rent may or may not, if amateur landlords leave the market, houses will come down in price so more ppl will / could buy...

3) No we fix the in-equalities.

4) Kiwi's cant avoid tax ultimately....it comes back, in the mean time they go to jail if its classed as tax avoidance..

5) I would assume a land tax would be appropriately worked out for flats...

If the so called rich are in property then I dont care if they come or go, they are not productive....more like leeches, you burn off leeches.

regards

And there in can be found the cancer that will fester away until it kills the host.. steven...the "exceptions"....also known as govt insurance schemes...a few here and a couple there...all honest and above board mind you..not to be dished out until we the govt are voted back in...exactly what happened to get Noddyland into the current crap. Go back in time and look at what the real reasons were behind the "exceptions" which are now killing the economy.

Chris_J - the idea here is that everyone has to contribute to the community in proportion to the value of the community resource which they want to hold for their own use. So for your questions:

1. Yes - if Grandma and the young couple are both holding the same value of land, they will have to pay the community for this. In the long term, this is fair - the inital unfairness of this situation has more to do with the transition from our current system to a land tax, rather than the unfairness of a land tax itself.

2. Why is one farmer's land more valuable than the other's? Its because there is more infrastructure around the one closer to town, easier transport, etc. You would be unlikely to set up a farm by buying a block of land in the Auckland CBD because it would not be the most economically productive use of this land - ie, you could get a better return putting the land to another use. In this way, a land tax will reveal a piece of land's true value. For the farmer closer to town, either farming will be the most productive use, in which case it will stay a farm, or there will be another more productive use (for example as industrial), in which case the farmer will sell up and the land will now be developed for more efficient output. This will sharpen up our economy and drive NZ to use its land resource most effectively.

3. Apartments - this is the most efficient use of land for accomodation purposes - each person is only using a small amount of land for their private accomodation use, so it's completely fair that they only pay a small amount of tax. On the contrary, having a big section in a valuable area is inefficient, and these people will have to pay the community (tax) if they want to hold a lot of land for their personal use. Again, it really makes you think about how much land you need!

Cheers,

Nath

So I buy a house and land with my tax paid income, and then pay the "community" which is roughly half workers and the other half welfare dependents for the privelige.

Great idea. Where do I sign up ?

If I paid less tax I might be able to afford some copper Wally - or have you cornered the market ?

Landlords will recoup the cost from the tennant, who will recoup the cost in their wages from the business owner (or govt employer), who will recoup the cost from local consumers. The only parties who cannot recover the cost are farmers and exporters. How does this cycle of inflation help anyone. It will have the same inflationary cost as the introduction of the gst.

Questions:
Will all the disruption and transfer costs to essentially collect the same amount of tax really be worth the trouble and investment uncertainty?

Will the nation earn one dollar additional export income by rearranging which deck chairs are subject to tax?

Will the poorest 10% of children receive better health care, education, opportunity as a result of this cultural shift?

Don't waste your breath blogging about this one, John Key won't approve this idea

In the bloo corner steven...in the pink corner Mark....this is going to be entertaining. You don't mind being in the pink corner do you Mark?

Maybe the sooner NZ Inc goes bankrupt the better

Re retirees, I have some sympathy for their position, but no more (and probably less, truth be told) sympathy than I have for the thousands of young families on an average income who can't afford to buy a house in the first place.

If Granny can't afford the tax on her pile, she should sell it to someone who can and move into a more affordable place. The same advice being metted out to people who can't understand why their average salaries aren't enough to buy somewhere half decent.

Also, to the plonker above who claimed businesses can claim PAYE - that is news to me (unless I am misunderstanding the comment). Businesses don't pay PAYE, employees do out of their gross salaries. The business claims the gross salary of the employee as an expense and merely pays the employees' PAYE tax on their behalf.

I'm all for land tax. Bring it on. No exceptions, no thresholds! However, I am also in favour of reducing government spending overall, so I would expect significant tax cuts elsewhere to compensate. Once again, the debate is done no favours by those who can't argue beyond "cut all taxes and introduce no new ones". The mix counts.

Wading back in holding my nose. Steven said, leech makes money off property and other speculation, usually to the detriment of others.

Capitalism is not a zero sum game: both parties to a transaction between consenting adults take away value (unless you've got a Nanny trying to tilt the playing field toward 'her' view of justice - read, to get her cut for doing nothing other than messing everyone around - and then fair, just, exchange is lost).

Wally, I believe in the non-initiation of force.

and Mike Shaw left out another CON of the land tax

"would be very easy to administer and very hard to avoid, so would not provide additional revenue stream for accountants"

What about this effect of land tax:

Rental properties will no longer be available in areas where the land value has increased dramatically.

EG. In chch you can rent a 1.5m property for $400pw (Fendalton- near uni, good school zones). The rent will have to increase by over $100pw to cover the new tax... (this is high rent for chch!)

Do you want all rental stock moving to areas of low land value? ..and simply be unavailable in areas near universities and good school zones?

@Andrew: Goldman Sachs is described as a vampire squid....with good reason IMHO....

regards

"Capitalism is not a zero sum game: both parties to a transaction between consenting adults take away value"

Consenting adults only applies where both parties are of equal strength...its quite clear there is a huge gulf between your theoretical world model and the real world....fortunately 99% of the world's population also can see through that lie.

regards

tax more and more tax... excellent idea! wonder what planet you guys are on?

@gingerbreadman: who said more tax? more tax methods maybe. ie Im assuming that if we have a land tax, or other new tax that these then results in a drop or elimination in taxes elsewhere, Business and PAYE tax for instance.

regards

Mark - ultimately, all land belongs to the community. If you don't think so, just ask anyone in Mt Albert who lives where the tunnel is planned to go!

Steven said, unbelievably:

No"¦.freedom takes many forms"¦in fact I dont see that you need any property ownership at all"¦

Goodness me. Stalin and Mao didn't think there was 'need for any property ownership at all' either. That doesn't worry you? Where your philosophy ultimately leads to?

The only form of freedom you can know to be able to make that incredible statement, is the freedom of the slave. And that ain't freedom at all.

But thank you for demonstrating the real wellspring of land, and all wealth taxes.

from Adam Smith:
Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expence. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent.

Hmm I quite liked read Adam Smith....he still has a lot to offer IMHO.

regards

Nath if you saw my tax bill you would know I well and truly contribute to the community....and I have absolutely no issue doing so.

Its when the "community" keeps coming back for more that I have an issue.

Land tax will not solve all of the problems and it will create a raft of new ones.

PS I guess nows not the time to tell you I drive a v8 ?

@ Steven - You are assuming!

Mark, I find that it is best to consider other people's positions by reading them, rather than their opponents. You don't need to follow my suggestion, of course.

Freedom and property rights are not identical concepts, in my opinion. For example, someone else claiming and enforcing a 'copyright' as a form of 'intellectual property right' takes away my right to print and sell documents. Likewise patent holders restricting my right to produce and sell designs or devices. The question is what should be property -- that which an owner has the right to restrict others from using, and what should not be property. For example copyrights and patents show two possible freedoms and property rights:
a) ideas and expressions are not property, and people are free to use ideas and copy expressions, or
b) ideas and expressions are property, and the owners thereof are free to use, or grant licence for others to use them, and others are not free to use them except by permission.

You will find the same thing about land ownership. Some claim that land should be communal, i.e. not a form of property, thus anyone is free to pass over it, be upon it, and use or employ it. Others claim it should be a form of property, with the owner having right to exclude others from it. Georgism supports exclusive rights to property in the form of transferrable titles, but subject to land value taxation.

@Sam_M

Name-calling is a bit pointless.

Certainly PAYE is probably a bad example. For a business most input costs are deductible, including taxes. Maybe a better example in council rates, or essentially GST.

In fact, in so far as most people are concerned about their cash-in-hand salary, PAYE is a cost covered by the employer.

Now as to whether a land tax, might or might not be claimable for certain types of "investment" activity I guess that will depend on any final form it might or might not take. It might also depend on the focus of the tax - in attempt to regulate via economic decisions choices people make or purely as another form of income for the central government.

Of course if the baby boomers spend too much on health and other benefits in the next few decades, then in an attempt to stay a float it might be the later.

Wally - It's OK the punitive tax would only apply to Accounts and Lawyers, of which NZ is pretty over populated with...

Actually a punitive tax might encourage some of them to emmigrate to Australia... which would be helpful with reducing Realestate/Land prices... two birds with one stone, some might say?

Next on the list would be Wally! Followed by mice. Be afraid mouse...be very afraid.

I believe in right and wrong, black and white. Call that narrow minded if you like. Better that than so open minded you end up believing in nothing, because we know what happens when good men do or stand for nothing ... being taxed for living in my own property for a start.

"being taxed for living in my own property for a start.
"

or being taxed on your savings, personal income etc .. oh i forgot that already happens. But maybe its fair to tax one and not the other,i just have not worked out why yet.

@David
Nice Adam Smith quote but real life observation is when the price of land goes up in the capital or Auckland so do the rates (land tax). The land price does not fall as most vendors don't need to sell at a loss. Rate increases are factored into the price tennants pay. There is a limited supply of land in the capital and if the tennant wants to live there they pay the asked price over maintenance, interest and tax.

Also "As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents". However the proposal is to reduce the income tax paid by competing tenants who subsequently being richer will afford the land tax adjusted rental as they fancy.

@Sam M "If Granny can't afford the tax on her pile"

If granny cant afford the tax on her HOME. Sorry, this proposal is lets tax the shit out of granny cause shes already paid off her home! It is hardly the same advice being meted out to the average salaried ie set up your "first" home in an affordable area. There is a life time of difference which pure simplistic economic rationalism cannot account.

If housing affordability is the problem there are three solutions.
Supply more housing land.
Increase wages by labour upskilling or strengthed unions.
Lower interest rates.

New and more tax is not one of them.

For Christs sake give me some peace in my later years. I worked bloody hard for 48 years to get a block of land.It was stuffed when I got it and now its a top little block.I pay enough rates, taxes etc now. So from now on all you bloody communists that want what other people have, get your sorry arses out here and I will let you look after the land. I dont expect to see any of you lazy buggers, hard work would kill you.

Joe, your first point seems to be plausible, because it applies to taxes on labour and capital and enterprise, but it doesn't apply to land value tax.

Land is valued differently from buildings. Land is valued as the expected future ground rents, less taxes, capitalised. There is no market on which more land in the same location can be produced, land does not have either an historical cost nor a replacement cost, so the land value is based on the net benefits available in the future. Buildings, however, have an historical cost, and a replacement cost, and more can be produced to replace the existing, if the demand is high enough. The analysis and conclusion of Smith is still considered good and sound economics today, on this point.

Your second point is granted: if other taxes are reduced, it does give people more wealth with which to demand ground, and more productive opportunities to use land. However, unlike some land tax advocates, I don't accept that all the advantages of the lower taxes and compliance costs get captured in higher ground rent.

@Joe - "If housing affordability is the problem there are three solutions.
*Supply more housing land.
*Increase wages by labour upskilling or strengthed unions.
*Lower interest rates."

Actually Joe there are four solutions... the other is controlling Bank Capital Adequacy Ratios...

The three you mention addrees only the Symptoms... of the real Issue.

holding interest rates low actually exacerbates the issue, quite the opposite of solving it.

Excellent David, you're getting there :)

The next trick is to be right in your pronouncements. Unfortunately on this one you're wrong, you've just sanctioned theft, so I've got to call you on it.

If I write a novel, what would give you the right to take it, download it, whatever, without paying me?

And how is that different to me simply hotwiring your car, if I like it, and driving off in it?

(What sort of a car do you have? Colour?)

Well, if Kinsella is saying you can download my novel against my will for no payment, I don't need to read him. He's wrong.

And now I've got to walk my dog ... (literally).

Well there you go, Mark. You're not willing to consider that you could be wrong, or that your position could be untenable. You don't want to dig deeper, or for that matter even skim the surface, of the arguments of those you are rejecting.

Also, land value tax advocates are not advocating another tax, they are advocating the replacement of all other taxes with land value tax, so that the number of taxes would reduce (or, they are advocating replacement of at least some other types of taxes, and the reduction of others).

In the Coming Christmas,UGG Boots is a Must-Have Trend Item in this winter!Find cheap uggs and buy Ugg Bailey Button Boots in www.llikeonline.com is your best choice.

UGG Bailey Button
UGG May Faire
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Tall

Promotion: "Buy two ugg boots get a ugg slipper FOR FREE"
2009 UGG Fall-Winter NEW Collection:

http://www.cnetinside.com UGG Online Store

ED Hardy Snowblazer Boots
UGG MayFair
FREE ! UGG Boots Gift
MBT Shoes
The North Face Down Coat

UGG Classic Tall
UGG 'Lo Pro' Skimmer
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet

UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Short Paisley

UGG Ultimate Bind
UGG Coquette Slipper
UGG Ester Slippers
UGG Knightsbridge Boots
UGG Lo Pro Button Boots

UGG Nightfall
UGG Rainier Eskimo Boots
UGG Suede Boots
UGG Sundance II
UGG Ultra Short
UGG Ultra Tall

http://www.supra-sale.com

Supra Cruizer Mens Shoes
Supra Muska Skytop Mens Shoes
Supra Muska Skytop Womens Shoes
Supra Skateboarding Mens Shoes
Supra Strapped Mens Shoes
Supra Suprano High Mens Shoes

http://www.12shox.com

Nike Shox Dreams
Nike Shox Torch Shoes
Nike Shox Kids Shoes
Nike Shox LT1 Shoes
Nike Shox Monster Shoe
Nike Shox NZ II Mens New
Nike Shox NZ Shoes
Nike Shox OZ shoes
Nike Shox R3 shoes
Nike Shox R4 Shoes
Nike Shox R4 Torch Shoes
Nike Shox R5 shoes
Nike Shox Tube Shoes

http://www.online-airmax.com

Nike LUNARGLIDE+ Running Shoe
Air Max 2009+ Running Shoe NEW
Air Max 2009 II New
Air Max 2010 New Arrival
Air Max Skyline Shoe
Air Max 2009 Series
Air Tiempo Rival AP Soccer Shoes
Nike Air Zenyth New
Nike Air Max LTD
Nike Zoom Sister + One New
Nike Sports Culture Shoe

http://www.nettimberl.com

Timberland Charles Street Boots
Timberland Classic Men's Boots
Timberland Custom Mens Boots
Timberland High-Top Womens Boots
Timberland Kids Boots
Timberland Mens 6-inch Boots
Timberland Mens Boots Chukka
Timberland Roll Top Mens Boots
Timberland Womens 6 inch Boots
Timberland Womens Roll Top Boots

You will find New design and Cheap items here!

Free shipping, Delivery by EMS, 6-9 business days to your door!

Mark, I thought you were supposed to be walking the dog?

Anyway, re government expenditure levels, I'd like to see central government expenditure reduced to 1% of GDP and local government expenditure at about 5% of GDP, in preference to today's dominance of central government expenditure, and bloated overall size. But that isn't the argument here, the argument here is about the tax mix. This could be done without introducing any new taxes, e.g. just transfer government spending and taxing to local responsibility, and local government would continue to tax land (some tax improvements, but I'd suggest unimproved land value as better), while central government taxes such as income tax and GST could be abolished.

Your language of stealing implies that the 'intellectual property right' you are claiming is valid. This is called begging the question, i.e. assuming what you're trying to prove, or, more correctly in your case, assuming what you aren't willing to consider could be a false assumption. I've gotta get to dad's birthday dinner about now so I don't have time to dig up some quotes of Stephan Kinsella's arguments for you.

Andrew - regarding how our tax is spent ('the community coming back for more') is a completely different issue - this discussion is really just around how we get tax in.

Anyone should be free to drive anything they like - it's just also reasonable for the community to expect polluters to clean up their mess. A well tuned V8 should be pretty economical and clean anyway though...

Mouse - its great for you that you are replanting your land in natives, but its still your own land, for your own exclusive use and no one elses except at your discretion. Imagine you could keep all of your income, and no tax on GST, but had to pay tax on your land? Would you be worse off? Maybe or maybe not, but either way it would make you think twice about how you used this land... if it is more economical to put sheep on it, then maybe you would sell it to a farmer or even back to the state as a park, and buy a more remote place to plant out?

Naf said, appallingly, ...if it is more economical to put sheep on it, then maybe you would sell it to a farmer or even back to the state as a park, and buy a more remote place to plant out?

It's his land! For F's sake. Why should he have to sell it because these bastard politicians have no desire nor need to have curbed their spending of 'his' money to fund their wet dreams.

Bugger them and bugger you Naf for even being able to suggest this like it is 'normal'. What a shitty slave nation we've become.

Good on you Mouse, and now you learn why you have to fight 'them'. This is what happens when you lose sight of how important individual property rights are to your freedom.

@Mark H: "Naf said, appallingly, "¦if it is more economical to put sheep on it" but this is exactly what ppl do now, make the (hopefully) best use of their land. What is happening now is too much money invested in property and land for a poor return for the Nation, so the Govn can and should change that, to take away the unfair/unrealistic tax dodges. So there will still be choice, but it becomes a choice for the best productive use of the land and not a choice of least tax.

regards

Mark H - envy ridden? Spare me, don't make the mistake of assuming others share you values. I wouldn't have your head-full of nonsense if you - ha - paid me.

Joe - one problem with 'making more land available', is one of the major reasons the world has hit the wall, and will stay there. They aren't - as Mark Twain noticed - making any more of it. Which (coupled with exponential growth in people and per-head demand, is the reason that land prices will probably still climb (relatively) even if taxed.

What this DOES do is pressure the likes of Mouse, me and the retired couples, to exit so someone can make more money from it. This is called being more productive, and only very stupid people indeed think that is more important than allowing Granny to continue sitting on her front porch with her evening sherry. Or Mouse and I to nurse our land back to better than it was.

This - and all the current suggestions, are symptoms of a much bigger problem. These folk - and Gareth Morgan is one who poo-poos the Limits to Growth (p17-18, Poles Apart) don't realise that they are now so into the last 'doubling-time' of them all, thus they are eyeing-off Conservation Land for mining, they'll be selling the seabed by the 1/4 acre shortly, and they're having to contemplate taxing something that doesn't make money. (Rates aren't a tax, they're a direct charge for property-related services - and a capital gains tax, of which I approve, is a tax on capital).

This is just another silent acknowledgement (like privatisation - why bother if there really WERE unlimited possibilities?) that there are limited opportunities to garner 'wealth', due to the finite nature of the supply.

If this 'feed the dosh the sharemarket way' suggestion did fly, there would have to be exemptions for the likes of Mouse, and for QE11 land, etc. I suspect the Grey-Power vote will crash it, but note English carefully mentioning 'homes', not 'properties'.

It'll be interesting to see what they suggest when they realise the dead cat isn't in fact bouncing, but falling down the rest of the cliff.

Mark - temper, temper! I could just as easily say 'It's MY income - Bugger you for suggesting that I have to give YOU (and everyone else in NZ) some of MY income that I earned" - but you're quite happy to have income taxed, aren't you, you commie...

Tax has to happen - the only question is WHAT we tax. Taxing land is no more 'socialist' or 'communist' than taxing income, consumption (via GST) or anything else.

So, settle - I'm not suggesting that anyone controls or tells you what you can or can't do with your land.

Having land tax as one of the only taxes (apart from pollution tax) is actually a very libertarian and free market approach - you can earn whatever you like, you have complete and unfettered title to your own land. Simple as that. There's just a tax on it.

I would love to hear these monetarist finger puppets veiw on this article:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/12/01/opinion-gareth-...

Mark - Oh no, I'm not! And I'm wide awake.

No one on this thread is arguing for more or less tax collection - that's a completely different discussion.

You can have a completely socialist state or near anarchy with any type of tax. Taxation does not determine the type of government you have - this is determined by the freedoms by law, and how tax is distributed.

My argument is that taxing income, consumption, etc, is a completely arbitrary way to calculate how much I should contribute to the running of my government/community. Taxing the value of the land which I want to hold for my exclusive use, isn't.

From that statement, you have no idea whether I'm an anarchist who believes in virtually no tax collection and minimal government, or whether I have pictures of the Great Leader in every room of my house.

Land is interesting...

1-David Hillary - Thinks it's is easy defined as the Net Present Value of Future Cash flows [NPV]

2-Nath - thinks "but its still your own land, for your own exclusive use and no one elses except at your discretion"

Have you ever considered, Land is llike a Balance Sheet... what you have in it, is the sum of all Deposits minus alll the withdrawal's to this day.... it's Value is what you can pass it on as... not what your capacity is to extract it...

Land [Soil] started life on Planet Earth as Rocks... billions of years ago... then life began, first as single cell organisms and evolved to more complex structure's... enabiing greater bio-diversity... Some of the earlier life died and for whatever geomorphological reasons, got traped in the earths crust and became, Oil, Gas, Coal etc...

Some of the more recent evolution, has just resulted in Compost, organic matter in the soil that enables a greater level of fertility... [or Cation Exchange Capacity] CEC if you get a soil analysis done... which is just a measure of capacity of free electrons available to convert Elements or componds into other compounds or life.

If you soil tested a virgin rainforest you would likely get a CEC of soil analysis would be around >40+.... but, if you found a piece of land that was intensivley grazed [without chemical fert added]... typically in NZ you would find a CEC of <15... so in less than 200 years since de-forestation....

we only have approx 38% natural fertility of what we had, when the virgin forest was cleared ... and we are reliant upon Nitrogen fertilizers that took some 80 million to 160 Millon years to make the compounds that make up the raw materials...in order to keep living the Dream.

Don't you see a lLEAD TIME issue here?...

It's not about how much I can extract from my land... It's about how I can Live a good life and pass the land on with greater value than I found it... measuring that inpieces of paper withe the queens face on is irrelevant.

How doesl a land tax help future generations... it's just doing more of the same... passing the debt to future Generations.

mouse.

JH - Do you think the Govt would issue new 'Title Documents'... as with a land tax tenure would not be able to be described as 'Simple Fee' anymore?...

@William

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_proje...

""
Under all projection series:
Population growth will slow because of the narrowing gap between births and deaths.
The population age structure will continue to gradually but significantly change, resulting in more older people and further ageing of the population.

Under mid-range projection series 5:
New Zealand's population is projected to eclipse 5 million in the mid-2020s and reach 5.75 million by 2061.
The population aged 65+ will increase from 550,000 in 2009 to 1 million in the late 2020s, and will exceed the number of children aged 0"“14 years.
One in five New Zealanders will be aged 65+ by 2031, compared with one in eight in 2009. ""

Hey! Get with the program, Kiwis! If anyone can do it, you lot should be able to. http://www.thedepression.org.au