This may be a hot take but I think there should not be forever private ancestral lands.
The city/state should periodically get the land back and resell it to cover the ever changing maintenance costs (heck you are paying this with the increasing property tax)
The city/state should have a relatively predictable timeline of when they can reliably gain control of a land back so they can plan development around it (particularly infrastructure) and not deal with someone who know they can just squat on such land to sell for an inflated price.
Having an “expiration date” on the land is a surefire way to stop ever increasing property prices, getting a home with a shorter remaining lease period might be preferable for some who is not going to stay there permanently but long enough to want to own a home and having these options be a cheaper option is a very good thing. Such expiration date also means it is easier to modernize each property as needed, this will not be the death of historic buildings because the city/state still can make exceptions for them if needed.
Also how many of the US-ians are getting a house as their inheritance anyways? Oftentimes when a generation passes away post retirement, their house gets sold to some investment firm and becomes a rental.
How exactly is it better for land to be ownable by the populace, rather than the public? I understand that there’s taxes, it’s to combat home ownership as an investment vehicle.
I am 100% sure that even when westerners will be reduced to living in a pods, eating bugs, owning nothing and being happy (or else) there would still be massive number of homeless people to serve as warning for pod people to be happy (or else).
It’s almost like people are talking about implementing this in other countries, strange concept I know, once you’ve caught up perhaps you could contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
If they have to pay to renew the lease, that’s is a kind of property tax, especially if an individual has to compete to buy their own lease. This may or may not be the case.
The news about the pilot is correct. Xi Jinping had been pushing for it for a long time and this is all he has been able to get so far. He is strongly against speculative growth of real estate.
AFAIK residents don’t have to compete to renew the lease. We have seen the first batches of leases expiring in recent times and no one got evicted. What I understand is that, you can’t sell your house after the lease expires, but you can continue living their indefinitely till the building crumbles. If the government decides to demolish and redevelop, then they give you a new house in the same place.
And what’s the problem with that?
This may be a hot take but I think there should not be forever private ancestral lands.
The city/state should periodically get the land back and resell it to cover the ever changing maintenance costs (heck you are paying this with the increasing property tax)
The city/state should have a relatively predictable timeline of when they can reliably gain control of a land back so they can plan development around it (particularly infrastructure) and not deal with someone who know they can just squat on such land to sell for an inflated price.
Having an “expiration date” on the land is a surefire way to stop ever increasing property prices, getting a home with a shorter remaining lease period might be preferable for some who is not going to stay there permanently but long enough to want to own a home and having these options be a cheaper option is a very good thing. Such expiration date also means it is easier to modernize each property as needed, this will not be the death of historic buildings because the city/state still can make exceptions for them if needed.
Also how many of the US-ians are getting a house as their inheritance anyways? Oftentimes when a generation passes away post retirement, their house gets sold to some investment firm and becomes a rental.
So the city/state should be covering maintenance costs by reselling the land… what the fuck are rates and land taxes meant to cover again?
The idea is to use land as a public resource, not something to be hoarded.
The answer is already there, increase rates for homes which aren’t owner occupied.
Anything else is just a tax on the working class.
How exactly is it better for land to be ownable by the populace, rather than the public? I understand that there’s taxes, it’s to combat home ownership as an investment vehicle.
I am 100% sure that even when westerners will be reduced to living in a pods, eating bugs, owning nothing and being happy (or else) there would still be massive number of homeless people to serve as warning for pod people to be happy (or else).
Sadly I think you’re right.
There are no property taxes in China last I checked.
It’s almost like people are talking about implementing this in other countries, strange concept I know, once you’ve caught up perhaps you could contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
Being a jackass is also not a meaningful contribution.
Agreed, you should try not doing it sometime
Pointing out someone being rude does not make me rude.
Oh no! It’s rude now to point out someone can’t read and respond in context
Stay irrelevant
And now look how far you’ve brought us off track. Completely derailed the conversation. I hope you’re quite proud of yourself.
If they have to pay to renew the lease, that’s is a kind of property tax, especially if an individual has to compete to buy their own lease. This may or may not be the case.
There are also ostensibly value-added taxes and land appreciation taxes but I’ll admit those are not property taxes per se.
There is also this source that says that select cities such as Shanghai and Chongqing have pilot programs for property tax primarily targeted at high-value residential properties and secondary homes but they don’t have any sources, so I have no clue if it’s true.
The news about the pilot is correct. Xi Jinping had been pushing for it for a long time and this is all he has been able to get so far. He is strongly against speculative growth of real estate.
AFAIK residents don’t have to compete to renew the lease. We have seen the first batches of leases expiring in recent times and no one got evicted. What I understand is that, you can’t sell your house after the lease expires, but you can continue living their indefinitely till the building crumbles. If the government decides to demolish and redevelop, then they give you a new house in the same place.
Awesome! Do you have another source for the pilot? I expect it’s all in Mandarin and I am terrible at finding things in other languages.
I don’t have anything handy but I believe there’s a wikipedia page which has references for this topic. I can’t remember which one.