As the new comprehensive real estate tax code began to be operated in 2005, the real estate ownership tax system changed drastically. The conventional real estate ownership tax system consisting of property tax and comprehensive land tax was dichotomi...
As the new comprehensive real estate tax code began to be operated in 2005, the real estate ownership tax system changed drastically. The conventional real estate ownership tax system consisting of property tax and comprehensive land tax was dichotomized into the local tax or property tax and the national tax or comprehensive real estate tax. Thus, real estates are taxed primarily by local autonomous administrations and then, taxed by the central government in case the houses and land should be priced higher than the ceiling. The overhauled real estate ownership tax system is designed to stabilize real estate prices rather than achieve the original goal of tax or increase the financial revenues, and thereby, subject the rich real estate owners to higher tax burdens to prevent real estate speculations.
Originally, the draft code was scheduled to be operated beginning from 2006, aiming at 1% of the effective tax rate until 2017, but as the real estate prices began to skyrocket, the code would be implemented earlier in 2005, and only a year later, the code would be amended to increase the tax burden. Thus, as a result of such a hasty implementation of the comprehensive real estate tax, being pressured to stabilize the real estate prices earlier, the new tax system has been producing various side effects, particularly those centered about the principle of equal tax burden. The examples are differentiated tax on a certain range of real estates, differences of reference prices for tax, unfair appraisal of the real estates, sudden and heavy tax burden and the like.
As a result of this study, it was found that the tax burden on the houses of same prices differed wide between 2005 and 2006, and that the public reference prices differed considerably among local autonomous administrations and even in the same administrative districts, all of which suggest an unfair tax burden. Moreover, the real estates are taxed differentially depending on their types or uses. Thus, the tax burden on real estates would rapidly rise 600% from 2006 until 2007.
The government sets the goal to raise the public reference prices 100% by 2009 to increase the effective real estate ownership tax rate up to 1% on average. However, such a goal seems to be motivated by suppression of the speculative real estate demands with heavier tax burden on real estate owners rather than realize a fair tax burden. The result would be infringements on citizens'' property rights and possibly, tax payers'' higher resistances to tax. As a consequence of a comprehensive analysis of real estate tax burden, it was conceived that the after-tax expected revenue ratios fall below the market interest rates, which suggests that real estate profits are lower and therefore, that real estate prices may fall down to the level of capital encroachment.
After all, the new real estate ownership tax system ignores the basic principles of tax policies rather than realize a fair taxation, being obsessed to check the real estate speculation. Any tax should not be too heavy for tax payers to bear. Some foreign countries are protecting tax payers with such tax burden ceilings as ''annual rate of tax increase'' or ''accumulated rate of tax increase''.
In order to encourage tax payers to accept the tax burden without showing any resistance, the tax system should be based on the principles of equal and fair tax burden. However good a tax system is, it would invoke tax payers'' resistance if it should be unfair. So, the real estate tax system should be operated to achieve the goals of fair and equal tax burden rather than punish certain class of the citizens owning multiple or expensive houses or those in certain districts.