4 ms·
in india,it has been a tradition of "you sold a piece of land and this happens: you get capital gains and there is not a lot of exemptions (another house, agri
by 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
in india,it has been a tradition of "you sold a piece of land and this happens: you get capital gains and there is not a lot of exemptions (another house, agri land) so you pay your taxes at indexed cost of acquisition. the "price" set between buyer and seller at the time of registration is added 5-7% "stamp duty". so $ 1 mil + 5 % to govt= paid by buyer.
this is true for all subsequent sales so when the next buyer wants to see it at 1.5 mil, 5% is taken on 1.5 with no adjustment. this increases the cost of property but the government gets a huge chunk of tax revenue.
then there is area wise "property tax" which is an annual tax paid to local municipalities, small but it adds up.
when you are building a house, you pay "GST" or indirect tax on all consumables, wood, steel, cement, sand, bricks, glass, appliances, tiling, roofing, electricals, every darn thing and you cannot "claim" this tax as input so the government gets this.
what more do you want them to impose?
- tome 5y ago> what more do you want them to impose? The point of land value tax is to remove all those other taxes (at least, I wouldn't support introduction unless it did).
- 2Gkashmiri 5y agowould that result in less collection of taxes or more? because current implementation of cascading effect means more and more taxes are incurred, which while increases the price of property, gives taxes to government which is just that
- tome 5y agoWhether the overall tax take is more or less depends on the LVT rate! But I think proponents of LVT say that when introducing the tax the rate should be set so that the overall tax take is the same.