Daar is 'n hewige reaksie van die regering omdat die DP (hulle
advertensies weerspiel nog nie hulle nuwe naam nie) advertensies
voortbring wat die mense waarsku dat hulle tussen 70% en 180% meer gaan
betaal vir grondbelasting waneer die nuwe grondbelastingswet ingebruik
geneem word. Die ANC sê dis twak en bangmaak stories. Maar, tot huide
kon die ANC nie DP kry om hulle advertensies terug te trek nie. Kom ons
kyk wat is hier aan die gebeur.
Van wat gesien, gaan grond belasting nie verhoog word nie. Inteendeel
dit gaan verlaag word. Nogtans daar word begroot vir 'n verhooging.
Huidiglik word grondbelasting hoofsaaklik gehef op grond en nie
verbeterings (geboue ens.) nie. Uitsonderings is Kaapstad en
Johannesburg (net ingeval daar die mense is wat hulle familie in
Pretoria wil bel om te vra). Ek weet nie wat 'n werklike bedrag is nie
maar, vir die argument kom ons gebruik 'n belastingssyfer van R0,0018
per duisend Rand vir belastings doeleindes. So, in meeste gevalle in SA
sou grond alleen dan gebruik as die basis van belasting. Kom ons sê die
grond word gewaardeer as R90,000. Die belasting op die grond sou dan
R162 wees. As die nuwe belasting inwerking kom neem dit die verbetings
ook in ag. So, kom ons gebruik die moontlikheid dat daar 'n huis nou op
die erf staan van 'n herbou waarde van R350,000. So, die totale waarde
is nou R440,000. Maar, omdat die SA mark so bedruk is, word die
verkoopwaarde gestel op R360,000. So, om die ding reg te kry stel die
ANC voor dat belasting verlaag moet word (dis net 'n veronderstelling
wat ek maak as gevolg van politiese druk) en die syfer word gewysing
R0,0011 per duidend Rand waarde. Dis 'n verlaaging van so 40% op
belasting. So, wat gaan die belasting wees wat die regering gaan kry?
Die regering kry nou R396 in steede van die R162 voorheeen. Dis is 'n
verhooging van 144% (alhoewel daar 'n verlaaging van 40% aangekondig
word). Kom ons kyk wat sou gebeur as die verkoopswaarde selfs vasgestel
word op R250,000 (en .0011 per duisend) dan is die belasting R275. Nog
steeds 'n verhooging van 70%. Maar, nou wardeer die eenheid as minder as
die herbou koste. Dit kan mooilik geglo word dat die waardeering op die
vlak sal gedoen word want, dit beinvloed baie wette (insluitend die wet
op kapitaal groei).
Nie bewysbaar op hierdie stadium nie. Maar, watch this space.
Aangesien ek nie eerstehandse toegang het tot Feyerabend se vroeë en nog
ietwat naiewe werk "Against Method" nie, 'n kommentaartjie wat iemand ('n
kritikus van Feyerabend http://nsom.bu.edu/~pniower/pages/f.htm ) geskryf
het:
'n Ander lekker kort opsomming van Feyerabend se argumente rondom Galileo
verskyn by http://www.aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/galileo.html ('n
Katolieke blad) waar sy referaat "Galileo and the Tyranny of Truth" bespreek
word (later gepubliseer in "Farewell to Reason". "Farewell to Reason is
amper 20 jaar na "against Method" gepuliseer, let wel.) Uittreksel:
Die volgende aanhaling demonsteer dat Rome nie nou skielik besluit het om te
Galileo te "rehabiliteer" nie. Dit lyk asof daar weer goed propagandasous
deurgeloop het om die wanopvattings van nuusmanne te voed:
The Galileo Affair
No episode in the history of the Catholic Church is so misunderstood as the
condemnation of Galileo. It is, in Newman's phrase, the one stock argument
used to show that science and Catholic dogma are antagonistic. To the
popular mind, the Galileo affair is prima facie evidence that the free
pursuit of truth became possible only after science "liberated" itself from
the theological shackles of the Middle Ages. The case makes for such a neat
morality play of enlightened science versus dogmatic obscuratism that
historians are seldom tempted to correct the anti-Catholic "spin" that is
usually put on it. Even many intelligent Catholics would prefer that the
whole sorry affair be swept under a rug.
John Paul II and Galileo
This is not, however, the attitude of Pope John Paul II. In 1979, he
expressed the wish that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences conduct an
in-depth study of the celebrated case. A commission of scholars was
convened, and they presented their report to the Pope on October 31, 1992.
Contrary to reports in The New York Times and other conduits of
misinformation about the Church, the Holy See was not on this occasion
finally throwing in the towel and admitting that the earth revolves around
the sun. That particular debate, so far as the Church was concerned, had
been closed since at least 1741 when Benedict XIV bid the Holy Office grant
an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.
"Leendert van Oostrum" schreef...
>
> Ferdi Greyling wrote...
>> "Leendert van Oostrum" wrote:
>> > finally throwing in the towel and admitting that the earth revolves
>>> around the sun.
>>
>> Ek dit nerens so gerapporteer gesien nie.
>
> Miskien vertrou jy te veel op wat jy "gerapporteer" sien? Miskien moet jy
> vir loubscher vra. Dis hy wat beweer het dat die Pous nou skielik vir
> Galileo "kwytgeskeld het op alle aanklagte". Hy moet seker 'n betroubare
> bron hê vir sy bewering?
>
>> Was dit net jy Leendert?
>> Het jy voorbeelde van sulke berigte?
>> Sal dit graag wil lees.
>
> Vra vir laubsher.
>
> (Ek beskou natuurlik die berig wat jy hier aanhaal as 'n "berig". Ek het
> selfs die URL van die bron gegee.)
Galileo werd genoemd in die "mea culpa" van de Paus. Op de site van het
Vaticaan is niet heel veel te vinden, maar ik kwam wel de volgende
verwijzing tegen:
"Luigi Accattoli counted no less than ninety-four instances where John Paul
II himself had, acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in
connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition,
persecution of the Jews, religious wars, in re Galileo, and the treatment of
women."
Die nuwe grondbelastingswet (Rates and Taxes) in SA beinvloed meer mense
as wat op die oogaf voorkom. Nou is daar ook 'n klompie wat in denial
gaan en voel dit sal nooit gebeur nie. Hier is 'n artikel wat die wet
van die landbou oogpunt beskou. Wat opgelet moet word in watter mate 'n
nie produktiew plaas beinvloed word. Die kan nie aftrekbare onkostes hê
nie. En, ook plakkerskampe.
Die 'valuation' fase speel dan ook 'n groot rol in die 'land reform'
wet. Vernaam nou dat die ANC die saak spesifiek opgehaal het met die ANC
kongress verlede week. Weer word dit uitgespreek dat plaasboere te veel
vra vir hulle grond en die pryse kunsmatig opjaag. So, wat sal gebreur
as die grondbelastingswet die grond wardeer vir R1 miljoen (om geld in
te win) en, die regering offer net 100 duisend? Of, sal die regering
dieselfde moet offer as wat hulle wardeer vir belastings doeleindes?
------------------------------------------------------
by Justine Nofal
THERE has been plenty of disinfor-
mation disseminated about the
government's draft Property Rates Bill.
For instance, although it can be found
on a government website in the Bills
and Acts section, it has been stated re-
peatedly in Parliament over the past
few weeks,and echoed in the week-
end papers, that the Bill (now in its
tenth draft) has yet to be published.
Rumour has it that all properties in
South Africa will be taxed at between
7% and 9%. There is no basis in the Bill
for this assertion. Johan Pienaar, direc-
tor of macroeconomics at Agri SA, said
the rumour had started in the Western
Cape, but could not be substantiated.
Is is likely that the government has
encouraged the rumour for political
purposes? In the time-honoured
fashion of the old National Party gov-
ernment, the current government is
threatening the worst, so that when the
reality turns out to be much gentler,
even its most vociferous critics will
welcome it.
Some farmers were under the mis-
taken impression that the threat of a
land tax had diminished, if not disap-
peared altogether.
It is a matter of record, though, that
the sub-committee of the Katz tax com-
mission recommended to the main
commission that if a land tax was in-
troduced, it should be a provisional tax
for the farming community.
According to Mr Pienaar, this would
have meant that farmers would not pay
additional tax.
However, the main commission later
recommended that a land tax in the
farming community should be a de-
ductible expense, meaning that farmers
would have paid at least 58% of the tax.
Farmers should be in no doubt.
Although it may be some time before
the Property Rates Bill becomes law, it
is going to become a reality.
Asked whether the Bill was a round-
about way of introducing a land tax,
Annelize Crosby, legal officer at Agri
SA, said, "It is not a roundabout way at
all. It is a very direct way. We have
heard all about a land tax in the past,
and this is it."
It is worth adding that, because
the land tax on farms is going to be im-
plemented at local government level,
the government obviously sees this
as a way of extricating financially be-
leaguered municipalities from their
predicament.
Draft 10 of the Property Rates Bill is
a 43-page document in turgid legal lan-
guage. The Bill sets no rates, and this
may have led to some confusion. It
should really be called the Property
Valuation Bill, or something similar.
The essential point made by the Bill is
that rates must be levied according to a
property's market value. The drafters
intend the Bill to replace the 14 different
property tax regimes currently in use.
Gathering previously untaxed areas
such as farms, communal land and in-
formal settlements into the tax net is an-
other of the Bill's functions. In terms of
the new municpal demarcations, all
commercial farms in South Africa fall
under municipalities.
The Bill is split into three main areas:
1) The valuation process
Before rates can be levied on individual
properties, the municipality must value
all property, and prepare a new valu-
ation roll. The Bill requires municipal-
ities to revalue all properties every four
years, but this period may be extended
to five years.
Valuation must be done by legally
registered municipal valuers. The phys-
ical inspection of properties is optional,
and mass valuations may be applied.
Determining property values
Rates will be levied on the basis of a
property's site value plus its improved
value, the price the property is likely
to fetch on the open market. If a licence
or privilege adds value to a property,
this will be included in the valuation.
Property owners will be able to in-
sped the valuation roll and object to the
value placed on their properties. The
Bill provides for the establishment. of
valuation appeal boards.
2) The levying of rates
The draft Bill allows individual mu-
nicipalities to levy different rates on
different categories of property. Cate-
gories may include residential, indus-
trial and commercial property, farm-
land, conservation areas, formal and
informal settlements and communal
land. There is a provision for phasing in
rates over a period of four years.
3) Protective measures
The Bill contains certain protective
measures for property owners. The
Minister of Local Government, together
with the Minister of Finance, may set a
limit on the rates municipalities may
levy, or the percentage by which rates
may be increased.
Mr Pienaar said that Agri SA believed
the Bill had a host of shortcomings, such
as the large number of different.prop-
erty categories. The tax status of land
tax in relation to income tax, which is
critical, remained unresolved.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Victorian biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who had no brief for
Catholicism, once examined the case and concluded that "the Church had the
best of it." The most striking point about the whole affair is that until
Galileo forced the issue into the realm of theology, the Church had been a
willing ombudsman for the new astronomy. It had encouraged the work of
Copernicus and sheltered Kepler against the persecutions of Calvinists.
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
RSS
