Real Estate and RET
Recently, topics related to real estate have been brought up again and again, and above all the real estate tax. So I couldn't stay aside without thinking about the subject.
Many already know when in Latvia, RET is very different from world practice. The question is - why. There could be a lot of polymezation and philosophy here, but in reality the answer is very simple - when there is no desire to think it is. And here's the big stone in our politicians' garden. It is they who are not thinking and who are trying to go the easiest way.
Abolishing RET for the sole property as a large part of society is a political issue. And it is also a stumbling block. There has been a "People's Initiative" that was rejected by the Saeima. Signatures for a new such initiative are now being collected. And yet nothing changes. Why? The answer was mentioned above.
Our politicians coming to power in the Olympics the next day forget that they are direct members of the people who have to deal with the interests of the people rather than the mystical '' state issues ''. Yes, yes, as a former member of the Saeima structural unit, you can openly say that out of a hundred Saeima deputies, only five to ten [depending on the term and party mosaic] remember it while the rest of the assets are "caring" for the country. But what is the state, if not its inhabitants? Unfortunately, our fellow Members have another glance at this, and even during the meeting they openly say that '' we need to think about the country to have a good life there ''. I have put a direct question to one other member - 'which country do you worry about if this is not the case for us? Maybe this is your special country? '' Some of these deputies are very offensive to me so far.
But now back to the topic. Why not RET? The argument of the Saeima and the Government: The budget of the local governments is practically held by the RET. And this is an absolutely wrong opinion. It is true, but wrong, and no one is going to correct it because the municipalities have a very large and powerful lobby. And the reason for this is - why change what if the municipality is NOT doing now, DO NOT BUILD anything, is guaranteed to receive a certain amount of RET every year. Is the municipality interested in tensioning and investing, improving entrepreneurship, promoting demography? NOT. No, because it is not necessary. If we look at the statistics, about 78% of the municipalities leave a large part of the population each year. Did the municipalities worry about it? No, because the RET does not diminish from it, and our compatriot working abroad does pay for this RET. But if someone does not pay, then everything is very simple - the property is taken away and sold to someone. They are particularly well-sought after by foreigners, who use our property as a holiday home in an ecologically clean environment that has long been absent from much of Europe.
Basically, this is a crime, because the municipalities are destined for destruction. And they will not save any regional reforms, because as they continue, this thread will end with one region and everything. Ending ... Finita la comedia .... For almost thirty years, post-Soviet communists have realized the devastating Marxist socio-economics. And, as a result, there is an absurd circle that can only be a radical way out of political responsibility. Municipalities are now charging RET, of which almost one-third go to social benefits. So for those who have stopped any further development because of the same local negligence and ignorance. Another part goes to municipal capital companies for services that one could and would want to do cheaper but cannot, because the same municipality has done nothing for business development, we have the opposite - we have tried to protect the monopoly of our capital companies, because then you can legalize this money in your wallets. The second aspect is that, by abolishing the RET, the state has to return to the municipalities a larger share of the personal income tax [PIT], but this in turn threatens to bankruptcy the budget that the same socialists have wasted. It is these two aspects that do not allow for the abolition of the RET, because the Members '' take care of the country '' and not the people. Besides, I know how often in the informal meetings these same fellow Members surprise - "we do so much, but as it gets worse, it gets worse ....". And do not understand that it becomes worse because they do not care about the nation, which is the basis of the state.
And now at the RET itself. I, too, believe that the sole property of the RET should be abolished. However, my views do not yet coincide fully with the abolition of the RET activists. My belief is that the concept of the only property should be defined. And it will have to be that the only property is the property owned by one owner and his family as a whole, and it declares those persons. Children cannot be the owners of real estate earlier than the 21year old, proving that the property is legally acquired, except for orphans, or the only direct heirs. And there is a problem when some 'rich' have six houses where one belongs to his wife, the other - to the daughter, the third - to the son, etc. ... If that is the case, be so good and pay the RET for everyone except one because you can afford it, as evidenced by the well-being of life. It's the same with rental houses as it is a source of income. Also pay for the rented homes and apartments in the RET. But get rid of the RET all those who bought or built the dwelling honestly, paid all the taxes, registered in the Land Register. The man has already paid for it. Why do I still charge RET every year for him? Where does Article 96 and 105 of the Constitution remain?
Another thing is land. There, I believe that the RET should pay everyone, because the land is a national territory. Earth is a state. And the land for RET can be set in gradients. Agricultural land - one tariff, organic farming land - reduced tariff. Home land [up to 2h] - another tariff, tended land used as natural farm - reduced tariff. Non-cultivated land - increased tariff. In the spring, a burning trip - a threefold tariff. Forest land - its own tariff again. Groomed forest - reduced tariff. A forest where '' restores '' in the path of self-cultivation - a double tariff. And believe me - life will improve as well as many, many other problems will be solved.
Of course, there will be many objections to this, because it will say that the land is also bought, and that is property, etc., bla, bla, bla ... Yes, but the ground is the territory of the country, the basis of the state. In addition to this, it could be that the land was given for the great work of the state, as was the case with the Latvian freedom fighters, who were given the country's land as a gratitude for their participation in the Freedom Fight. But it was a long time ago and now unfortunately it cannot be applied unless you start this process from scratch. And for those who say, '' but my grandfather gave this land '', I will answer - yes, gave, and we think ... But it was back then, and it was deserved. Unfortunately, this land was not protected, and in 1991 everything started from scratch. Here it is. That is why RET has to pay land.
Here is my opinion, my conclusions.
But I hope that there will be deputies who will start thinking about the people. No, not already pimenov and gobzem, who torpedo the Saeima and kacina the nation. For them, the nation is the least important because their actions are based on the polishing of their EGO. Even theoretically, if you suddenly give them the power - they will not cancel the RET, MPC, or anything else, and rhetoric will be the same as the others - you have to think, deal with ... And so from year to year. Though the truth is right here, and there is nothing to think, look for, address.
NEED TAKE CARE OF YOUR PEOPLE INSTEAD HIDE BEHIND STATE