The Catholic Church owns many billions of dollars of land in
Australia but does not pay any land-tax. Today, in Victoria,
Australia, if you own a second property worth more than 300,000,
you pay land-tax. Soon, however, property worth 50,000 and upwards
will be taxed, if a new bill goes ahead. This makes no moral sense
in an era of skyrocketing land-prices, where you would logically
expect land-tax thresholds to rise, not to fall. This letter to Tim
Pallas MP suggests that, rather than punish Australians with very
modest land-holdings, Australia should simply tax the Catholic
Churchs vast holdings.
The following letter was sent to Tim Pallas Victorian Labor
MP.
Dear Mr. Pallas
Re: Land Tax Act 2005, recent amendments and
consequences
We write to express our concern and disappointment with your
announcement in the recent state budget to reduce the exemption for
paying Land Tax from $300,000 to $50,000.
The purpose of this amendment is inexplicable, perhaps other
than to perversely begin levying Land Tax in a draconian way on the
least wealthy land owners. Setting a $50,000 exemption is
unnecessarily cruel and draconian on those who may have acquired a
small holding many years ago, and who, for a range of reasons may
not be able, or inclined, to dispose of the land.
Indeed, an increase in the exemption threshold was long overdue
and was expected to be increased due to the long delay since the
last adjustment. Logically, as land values always rise, so should
the threshold for exemption, and we suggest the exemption should
have been increased to at least $1 million to maintain the existing
relativities.
Land-tax changes would affect pension
eligibility
Pensioners for example, now forced to sell their land to pay for
the increasingly prohibitive Land Tax rates, may find themselves
ineligible for the pension, or reduced to only a part pension as
they would then have too much cash to be eligible for a
pension.
It is cruel and unfair to expect elderly pensioners, who may
have owned the block next door for decades to have to engage in a
market sale of their land, and the personal consequences to them,
such as living arrangements, family issues, eligibility for health
care etc. - arising from what is effectively for many a forced
sale. In short, given the relatively few people affected it is a
very limited source of revenue for the state. It seems
instead....