Taxing properties

 

[house*]

As the old joke goes, the only certainties are death and taxes. Regarding the first, none of us, as far as I know, have any personal experience to speak of but most adults are quite familiar with the second. For example, property owners and sometimes renters have to pay a property tax to their local authority to finance its services. This tax exists almost worldwide but how this tax is calculated varies from country to country. In theory the tax is the product of the base amount and the tax rate. Each country defines the first variable differently and has distinct mechanisms for setting the second as I will show in by comparing the property tax calculation methods in the United States, France and Israel.

In the United States, the base amount is highly variable while the rate is relatively stable. The local authority, usually the city, establishes the rate by vote with the increase in any given year limited by state law, thus protecting the taxpayer from sudden jumps. The city can apply discounts and exemptions for certain areas, building types and income levels at its discretion, On the other hand, the value of a property is based on its current assessed value, i.e., if former neighbors made a killing in selling their houses during a given year, everybody still living in the neighborhood must pay higher taxes as the value has risen according to the latest assessment. The constant increase in property value in California forced people to sell their houses because they could no longer afford the property taxes even if they had paid a modest price for it several decades previously. As a reaction to that, California voters in 1978 passed Proposition 13, which rolled back property taxes, which predictably significantly reduced local services. Thus, US property taxes vary greatly from place to place primarily due to property values.

By contrast, the French taxe fonciére is based on the rental value multiplied by a value local authority. The base amount is 50% of the annual rental value, an amount changing on a yearly basis. The tax rate increase is set by the government but a city can vote a supplementary amount as Paris did this year, raising the tax to 50%, yes fifty percent. Thus, not only do French landowners have to keep on eye on rental values but they also must watch their local councils.

Israel has the arnona, which, typically in Israel, is named after a special tax from centuries ago. The base value for this property tax is the size of the property with the  tax rate set by square meter. One would think that the base amount would remain constant but the local authorities have a nasty tendency to periodically remeasure houses and flats and discover previously unknown meters, such as outside walls and covered garages, thus adding sometimes 10% to the previous measurement. The local authority set the rate with the government determining the minimum and maximum amount. As usual, there is a catch in that a local authority may make an application to the Interior Minister for an exception to these limits. As elsewhere, the local authority can apply this rate uniformly or create partial or complete exemptions, an important matter in a country with a large number of religious institutions of various kinds. Israel property tax bills are relatively stable aside from those re-assessments.

It is almost certain that, if you are a property owner, you complain about property tax bills regardless of which country you live. To be fair, most people are not happy about the level of local services either but that is human, right? Curiously, each country has chosen its particular manner of calculating its pound (or dollar, shekel or euro) of flesh. Is one fairer than the other? That issue taxes my understanding of property.

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Picture credit

People gathering – similar but different

 

[herd of zebras*]

One of the most interesting aspects of visiting a zoo is the observation of how apparently similar species behave so differently. For example, the closest genetic relatives of homo sapiens are chimpanzees and bonobo apes. Regardless of their common heritage, their means of social communication are opposite with chimpanzees often using pseudo and real violence to resolve conflicts while bonobo apes generally having sex to defuse tensions. Likewise, when visiting and especially living in a different culture, it is fascinating to see how others handle social situations. Some examples are the use of alcohol as a social lubricant, family get-togethers and weddings.

[grapes on the vine]

Alcohol is the starter fluid for conversation in many cultures. In the United States, the host greeting guests at the door sometimes even asks “do you want a beer” before saying hello. In many northern Europe countries, no party is complete without beer, vodka or the local liver poison. In France, the wine is the local version of English weather in terms of conversation. Picking a bad wine is almost as serious a faux pas as wearing mismatched colors. Curiously, in Israel, at least until recently, alcohol was not only marginal for social contact but even unnecessary. The younger generation clearly drinks more but still does not require alcohol to have fun, at least if the revelers were born in the country. In Muslim countries, alcohol is even forbidden. So, fermentation and distillation are clearly linked with sociability in some but not all societies.

[family of elephants]

The concept of family encapsules many forms. In some places, notably much of the United States, the family is the nuclear group, with the children leaving home and often even the same city forever once they become adults. Thus, many families only see each other on holidays. In other places, families including multiple generations live with or near each other and share each other’s tables on a regular basis. In Israel, a small country, in many Jewish homes, the extended family dines together every Friday or Saturday. In Arab houses, the children may actually live in the same house on a different floor with household expenses shared by all residents. I suppose this closeness is a blessing for older people but can be a curse for the daughters-in-law, who have to tolerate the domination of the mother-in-law. Clearly, the importance of family togetherness varies from culture to culture.

[wedding table]

Weddings are the ultimate social gathering, combining multiple and occasionally contradictory purposes. Weddings are to celebrate a marriage, balance accounts and make social statements. As such, the size of a wedding and choice of guests is a complex matter. In England or the United States, a wedding with 200 guests is a large affair, appropriate for major public and financial families. By contrast, 200 guests in Israel is sign of a low budget or corona as it would require limiting the list to absolutely closest family and a few friends, not a diplomatic act. In at least one culture, the hosts actually open the envelopes in front of the guests and announce the amount of the gift, a sort of financial transparency.  On a personal note, as it was the 2^nd round for my wife and I, we had no social debts and chose to celebrate with an “intimate” dinner with 20 people at a restaurant. Each culture has its own “correct” way to celebrate a marriage, with small changes are fashions come and go.

[stars in the sky]

We are all human beings but somehow there are so many different ways of social expression. From a distance, they may appear similar, like the stars in the sky, but each culture is unique. Vive la difference.

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Pictures credits: pixabay

Foreign tube watching

I admit that I enjoy watching foreign television. The reason is not that it has better or different programs than my local one.  In fact, the format of most television shows worldwide is fairly similar both due to the universality of human nature and tendency to copycat successful programs and of equally poor quality. For that matter, I don’t even have to fully understand the language to enjoy the television as any child can tell you. In my countries, I could guess, often successfully, the meaning of many words.  For example, Russian is very helpful in understanding Polish while Italian is a cousin of Spanish. By contrast, in China, I understood absolutely nothing and was mesmerized by the tube.

First of all, I enjoy the tone of the speech, which reflects the nature of the language and people as well as the agenda of the television stations. For example, most characters in English tend to speak quietly and even respectfully. At the same time, they often are mocking the same institutions and customs they are respecting.  This is a nice contrast to the argumentative and loud nature of Israeli television. Chinese television is owned by the government and is therefore very nationalistic and proud. Aside from great military victories and impressive scientific and economic achievements, they also proudly present many shots of Chinese food production and preparation, always in a loud fashion (to my ears).  Thus, I was able to see parts of China that I would and will never visit in person. Not having lived in the United States for some 30 years now, the TV in the United States is interesting in terms of how the language and emphasis has changed. I can see by the words and message that America is much more critical and direct than it used to be.

The national differences are also reflected in the local version of internationalized programs.  The French version of Master Chef focuses on the artistry of the food while the Israeli program focuses on the past and present personal situation of the participants. The tone of the original Japanese Iron Chef is straight out of the classic Samurai Movies while the American one resembled sports broadcasting. In the Israeli The Voice, exotic is expressed by an ultra-orthodox singing rock while in China strangeness was represented by a black Chinese-African singing Frank Sinatra in English (and singing it well, it should be noted). I would not say “lost in translation” but instead “localized in translation”.

Finally, the aspect of foreign television I enjoy most is the commercials. Ads reflect the 

concerns and psychology of the people.  For example, based on the frequency of the ads on UK television, the Baby Boom generation is very concerned about paying for funerals while those in their twenties are having a hard time getting accepted for a credit card. French commercials focus on food, health and losing weight, no surprise. Apparently, death and credit are of no concern. Americans appear to be hypochondriac as every third commercial (or so) sells some drug, faithfully and rapidly reading through the long list of potential side effects and ultimately encouraging people to consult their doctor, of course.

So, while I am not a big fan of spending much time in hotel rooms when I travel, circumstances sometime lead to dead time, which I profit from by watching TV. I am amused, surprised, educated and even entertained by programs whose words I barely or do not understand at all as I learn about the culture, psychology and concerns of that place. In short, foreign television is much more interesting and educational than my local local one, just like the proverbial lawn.

Orwellian Thoughts

During my just completed family visit to Los Angeles, I had the rare chance to spend many hours reading a book as I was sitting next to my father in the hospital.  By chance, I had purchased the first volume of George Orwell’s essays, reviews and essays, encompassing the years 1930-1940.  During these years, he wrote about poverty, both in the UK and abroad, and the Spanish Civil War, some of his passions. He also wrote about ideologies of the day, namely fascism, communism, socialism and capitalism, from his independent point of view.  During 1930’s, people had much more hope and passion in politics.  Among the articles he wrote in 1939, one titled Not Counting Niggers caught my attention not because of its currently unacceptable name but instead to its content, surprisingly still relevant 70 years later.

In this article, he critiques a long-forgotten book by Mr. Streit entitled Union Now calling for a complete union of “good” democracies to fight the “bad” bullies of the time, notably Germany, Italy and Japan. Orwell does not reject offhand the need for such a union and even sees a logic to it.  He also does not challenge the assumption that the latter three countries are morally evil.  However, he does question how pure the democracies are.  In 1939, France and Britain had huge empires which provided them with the economic resources to support their standard of living at home.  The “dependencies” as they were called had almost no economic or political rights of their own, a fact equally acceptable to both socialists and conservatives of the time.  In other words, while the crimes in the fascist country were clearly different in kind, Orwell questioned just how innocent the Western democracies were.  He should be noted that he completely supported the war when it broke out but did not turn a blind eye to the existing stains.

Today, Western democracies no longer have empires.  The UK has a Commonwealth, a formally voluntary union of former colonies while the France has arrangements for its former colonies. Instead, current Western standards of living are substantially based on low wages, not to mention poor working conditions, in China, Bangladesh and India, to name just a few third world countries.  To demonstrate, the price of basic of garments would be significantly higher if they were actually made in the US or UK.  Unfortunately, “out of sight, out of mind” often still applies.  Since people do not actually see those sweat shops, they don’t exist, just as Orwell wrote.  Awareness has increased in recent years as a result of some shocking newspapers. Nonetheless, Orwell’s belief that political and labor rights should be universal is still far from being prevalent.

In my view, George Orwell is among the greatest writers of the English language in the 20^th century. While some of issues he treated are no longer relevant, his enlightening point of view and beauty of language still provide a ray of light in the 21^st century.

Food conclusions

Translations without cultural explanation can be deceiving even for the casual tourist.  While food items may seem simple to guess or find in the most basic pocket dictionary, naïve readers may be unaware of what they will be getting.

For example, most cultures have meat as an essential part of any serious meal.  However, the term meat left unspecified has a clear significant for the locals that may not be known to visitors, mainly based on the most economic and prevalent form of it.  For example, in countries with significant quantities of land water, beef is the common main course of a dinner.  By contrast, if the media inn Israel talks about families that cannot afford meat during the week, it is referring to chicken, which is affordable to most families, as compared to beef products, which are expensive and not especially good (granted with a few exceptions).  New Zealanders, outnumbered by their sheep, do their best to reduce the quantity of the latter.  The Chinese, often living in cramped conditions or poor land (a high percentage of China is actually mountain or desert), assume that pork is on the menu.  Some countries, such as France, are blessed with a rich variety and quality of land. For them, meat is meat, i.e. derived from an animal source and needing to be specified. 

In the same vein, it is common to eat a salad with that meat but it is not always clear to visitors what they will get.  In the United States, lettuce with a few tomatoes is the standard fare.  In the Middle East, lettuce is exotic but finely diced tomatoes, cucumbers and parsley are served everywhere.  Europe tends to have sliced vegetables, including the basic crudités in France, which means the raw variety. South Korea is famous for Kim Chee, a fermented cabbage based dish. For that matter, steamed or pickled cabbage is the basic green in China (historically because the use of “night soil”, i.e. human feces, rendered eating raw vegetables quite dangerous).

We need our daily bread, or so it is said, but the form of that bread can vary from country to country.  The United States generally services some kind of white flour roll unless you are sitting in an upscale or foreign restaurant.  The baguette rules in Italy and France, curiously enough even in Chinese restaurants.  By contrast, good brown bread is available in Germany and Holland, but has to be ordered in the former.  Local Middle Eastern food, especially humus, is automatically accompanied by pitta, a pocket bread, except during Pesach where even Arab restaurants have matzo, unleavened bread, available for their somewhat observant diners. India is famous for na’an and other flatbread.

Finally, locals tend to drink different beverages.  The French love their wine with any meal, claiming with some possible justification that it leads to better health and sex.  The Chinese are famous for their tea.  In Eastern Europe including Germany, beer is inexpensive and good though I am not quite so confident of its positive effect on life expectancy and intimacy.  Americans, being the land of plenty, drink everything, including milk. Once soft drinks were once the norm in Israel, but the Russian immigration has brought with it greater consumption of alcohol of all kinds, for better or worse.

Hurry up and wait

As an American immigrant to Israel, many Israelis are honestly baffled why I would choose to give up the good life in the good old USA and come to live in this “tough” country.  The actual, albeit not rational, answer to that query is that I feel at home here for whatever reasons.  Yet, beyond that question is an assumption that everything is better in America.  While some things are better, the comparison is far from black and white.

Two issues struck me when I came back from LA this time, the lack of chairs for the supermarket cashiers and poor quality of the freeways in LA. Regardless of the level of the store, the cashiers there were provided no chairs on which to sit.  The poor women, in my mind, have to spend their entire shift on their feet except during their allotted breaks.  By contrast, even the most modest grocery store in Israel provides a stool or chair for its cashiers.  I recall that when I was young, there was a massive boycott of grapes because, among other reasons, the field owners would not provide long handles for the hoes of its workers, thus forcing the fieldworkers bend over the entire work day.  I believed that was petty and cheap of the part of the employers. The same appears to be true in regards to supermarket owners.

The other shocking difference was the quality of the freeways.  I am aware that the State of California has had budget problems for many years, but it has let its freeways deteriorate drastically.  LA freeways are the lifeblood of the metropolis, the almost sole way from travelling from one part to another.  Yet, their pavement is so broken up that it often requires both hands held firmly on the wheel to keep the car in the lane.  Driving at 100 km/h, that sounds like a recipe for disaster.  By contrast, due to the growing problem of accidents in Israel, the country has invested significant funds in improving the roads, even in the periphery.  I could literally feel the difference as the taxi took us from the train station to our house at the end of the trip. It was a pleasure to roll down the highway in Israel.

So, the land of milk and honey is better than the land of opportunity at least if you want to drive down the road and have to work at a supermarket.