Salahuddin Khan
On Pakistan’s already beleaguered economy, the added pressures of the recent floods are estimated to have created $10 billion of additional damage-related burden. It will likely cost double that amount if we’re to see more than simple replacement of the old buildings, farmlands and infrastructure and use the opportunity to rebuild the country leveraging all that we can in modern, cost effective technology. The disaster could thus be seen at least with some silver lining.
To be sure the international community has promised much, though much of what’s been promised has also to be delivered. Nonetheless that figure, if collected, would be barely 5% of what’s needed, given the truly vast scale of the devastation.
For these and other reasons, Pakistan has proceeded cap-in-hand to the IMF for additional assistance and as usual, IMF money comes with harsh strings including the abolition of energy subsidies and reform of the General Sales Tax.
But with barely three percent of its population paying taxes and its most wealthy escaping taxes more than in most countries around the world, Pakistan has to be close to the head of the pack in needing significant revenue reform. The recent floods simply serve to highlight the unacceptability of this situation and glowing with empty pride about being the “Land of the Pure” while over half the population is doing everything in its power to ignore or pay off the taxman with bribes, is hardly the way forward. We have no basis for national pride in the face of such behavior.
So what can be done to advance the state of affairs, and more particularly, how can we leverage the new momentum of national unity to repair our ravaged country?
Here’s a potential thought, with apologies for not recognizing anyone else who may have offered the same opinion either here or in other public media. What if we were to abolish all income tax and in its place introduce a gradually increasing property tax on real estate owned?
Here’s how it might be put into effect.
We would start phasing out personal income tax (“personal” here would include partnerships and sole proprietorships) over say, three or five years. All those people in the black economy, hiding their cash or income (which isn’t too hard to do), often with the collusion of corrupt tax inspectors and collectors, would be incentivized to bring it out of hiding. Much of it might have been hoarded in the past, where hoarding is to be distinguished from “savings” in its unavailability to the economy in a hoarded state. If this were to happen then we might get a useful bump in circulation before this new supply is soaked up in inflation.
Second, we would re-survey the land for all real-property (which is extraordinarily difficult to hide) and systematically establish ratable values based entirely on acreage and type of land, such as agricultural, residential, industrial or commercial. Rated to that value would be a progressively increasing tax rate (updated annually during the transition) whose level would be pegged to managing a smooth transition from income-tax based revenues to property tax based revenue. We could probably go the same three to five years to phase in the property tax before it stabilizes to its long term level.
Third, we would begin phasing out sales taxes on low level products and services and focus them on larger, hard to hide luxury goods. Consider just some of the interesting consequences of such a change.
As noted already, land and buildings are difficult to hide. I couldn’t stash my (hypothetical!) Pakistani farm in a Swiss bank. Sure, some of the wealthy might prefer to shift their assets into say, gold or diamonds but the land remains the land. Someone’s got to own it and it can’t be exported. If we design the land/property tax in a graduated fashion, then we can also make it disproportionately expensive to own above certain thresholds of land. For example, something below one acre might attract zero tax. (Even large homes in Pakistan don’t generally sit on a whole acre of land). One to five acres might attract 1% for land and 1% for dwellings. Above five and below twenty five might be 2%. Above twenty five but below a hundred might be 4% etc. The concept here is more important than the actual numbers which would clearly require some research to fine tune them to the country’s socio-economic circumstances.
A natural incentive would spring from such a provision. People would subdivide and sell parcels of land into separate ownership. Sure, at some level, merely handing out parcels to one’s own family members will be effective but this will soon dissipate and spread into the general population. Others will bear the cost and prefer to hold on to their land and dwellings, but the property tax could at least be a highly auditable and natural check-and-balance on extravagance.
Another consequence will be that people will prefer to focus on income generation instead of amassing land, which as a dynamic in the economy would drive the country to greater industrialization. The focus will shift to generating tax free income from the land if it is to be owned at all. This beats simple speculation in land value, while keeping the land in disuse. Satellite imagery would be fairly effective in detecting land use and support any ground-based monitoring for non-usage. Certain sophisticated software algorithms can even be imagined which would automate land use detection—see below.
An emerging middle class would be very income focused and that would be good for the economy, leaning it more in the direction of modern knowledge-based economic models. Gone would be the bribing of tax inspectors and collectors to fend them off from examining complicated income statements, along with the back-end infrastructure for tax collection that presently exists.
Home ownership patterns for the middle class might evolve more to resemble those of Japan than of the USA, with most property optimized as income properties using economies of housing scale, such as multiple floor-plate buildings, though we would need to be intelligent about codes and regulations to avoid the worst excesses of multi-family living.
As the middle class evolves towards a more income-focused and knowledge-based economic model, home ownership patterns may shift significantly. For those considering investment opportunities, Charleston County, SC presents an appealing market where property can be optimized for rental income and future growth. The diverse housing options in Charleston County allow buyers to explore various styles and types of properties, each offering unique advantages.
To navigate this market effectively, it’s beneficial to review a comprehensive list of zip codes in Charleston County SC. This will help identify key neighborhoods and districts that align with your investment goals and residential preferences.
When it comes to selling a house, making a strong first impression is critical. However, challenges can arise when dealing with issues like unpleasant odors, which can significantly impact potential buyers’ perceptions. Whether from pets, smoke, or other causes, a house that smells can deter interest and lower its market value. It’s essential to address these concerns before listing the property, ensuring that it feels inviting and fresh to prospective buyers. Thorough cleaning, professional odor removal, and even staging can help neutralize any unpleasant smells and increase the chances of a successful sale.
In addition to creating an appealing environment, pricing your property competitively and marketing it effectively are key strategies for attracting serious buyers. Especially in competitive markets, it’s important to highlight any unique features or potential rental income the property may offer. With the right preparation, even selling a house that smells can be a manageable process, ensuring that you optimize both your time and investment returns. Buyers today are more informed and selective, making it essential to approach the sale with a strategic mindset to stand out in the marketplace.
For lower middle-class people, there would be little, if any tax burden. This would encourage them to step up to the next rung in the social ladder as relatively unfettered income would be available to meet both subsistence needs and savings (with appropriate incentives on savings) or investment in small/medium businesses. In such cases, there would be virtually no need to deal with tax inspectors and collectors. This might even attract foreign investment.
The poorest people might get the opportunity to earn out the land under their feet if they are agrarian, supported by the incentives for land owners to shed some land to escape graduated property taxes.
Of course, with modern satellite based surveying and computerization, it is quite easy to virtually automate tax assessment and with yet more incentives to pay by automatic withdrawal based on the assessment, it would eliminate much of the labor involved. This would free up resources primarily for property audits, which as mentioned previously, would be much easier than for income.
Pakistan probably doesn’t have many more years left to continue rolling from crisis to crisis with a polarization of have’s and have-not’s. If our claims to patriotism for the country are to have meaning, we must shoulder the burden of paying the price albeit with some assurance that we aren’t going to be consumed by corrupt and hungry officials.
The proposal above clearly doesn’t eliminate all corruption which can certainly continue on the other side of collections in the bureaucracy even if more taxes were to be collected. However, it would do much more to balance things out in society without stepping into socialism and it would leverage natural incentive structures to achieve land redistribution without impossible-to-pass land reform legislation. Alright, I guess it would quickly be recognized as indirect land reform but there’d be some carrots too—abolition of personal income tax?
One thing is certain. We can’t continue relying on the generosity of other nations, mirroring in ironically poetic parallel, the artful and sometimes prospering beggar we see in so many of our country’s streets.
Salahuddin Khan is an engineer, an entrepreneur and author of the recent novel Sikander.




















































I don’t think the proposal as a whole is workable for many of the reasons mentioned. But i do welcome the fresh thinking and bold approach. We need that because we cannot get out of this mess with the same old same old type of thinking.
One part of this which I think DOES have a lot of potential is about using technology and satellite technology to mark properties to be taxed. We know a lot of tax evasion in Pakistan happens by hiding properties or bribing people to have them listed wrong or not at all in the records. Well, if the records can be made electronic and updated regularly we can begin fixing that BIG loophole and that itself will be a step forward.
Can you explain why we should do away with personal income tax.
Shouldn’t we be incrasing our tax net as you mention that only 3% of people are paying taxes.
Dear Salahuddin,
Your idea seems interesting, but it may be a recipe for disaster – and here is how:
1) When the entire taxation is based on property, the demand for property would fall, possibly leading to recession and overall loss in GDP. This may even lead to a mini sub-prime housing crisis – something that led to the US economy crash in 2008-2010.
2) The problem with Pakistan is not really bad laws, but rather their bad enactment. If you look at the tax slabs for income in Pakistan (which I believe are this: http://www.taxrates.cc/html/pakistan-tax-rates.htm l) they seem to be pretty reasonable.
However, how many citizens follow taxation rules? If they don’t follow rules now, what would make them follow another set of rules later? For instance see this:
http://www.pakistantalk.com/forums/social-affairs/ 7848-pakistan-ministers-not-paying-income-tax.html
3) On the contrary, the majority tax payers in Pakistan have their tax deducted at source by their employers. If even that source is removed, the taxation would only fall.
4) Last, but not the least, property taxes are extremely complicated as determining the actual cost of property is non-trivial. How do you determine the accurate property tax – should you do it by surface-area, or location, or number of rooms, or locality, or number of people, or deed-papers?
Most countries have a audit mechanism to ensure this cost, which I am pretty sure won’t work in countries like India and Pakistan that have high levels of corruption.
As far as satellite based scanning is concerned – well that may not be necessary. There are companies that can provide the map data for a paltry sum.
As far as taxing luxury goods and removing taxes on others, well again that’s also a bad idea. The market works on the principle of supply and demand. Russia tried to do this, and it resulted in all luxury goods vanishing from markets and their black-marketing. And surprisingly, this led to higher prices for the non-luxury goods that soon became luxury items :)
The only countries that don’t have income tax are some gulf countries awash with petro-dollars, or small islands that are tax havens serving as conduits for foreign exchange and shady investments. Pakistan is a large country that does not matches either of the above categories.
But I see one silver lining in this proposal – regularization and better governance of land ownership in itself would be a huge achievement for mostly feudal controlled Pakistan, and can spur reform and development in the villages.
Amina – I do not know of a country where this is practiced though there are US States which do not tax income. I’m not aware of a country practicing a property tax only model, although several don’t charge income taxes. Recognize also that in my proposal, income taxes would still remain for corporations.
Although the model is not based on another country, understand that the proposed model is borne of the twin issues of disparity of income and corruption in tax collection. Not generally problems of more advanced economies.
No doubt as incomes even out over time (the essential ideal of a burgeoning middle class) then the proposed model become less tenable and its OK to change things as situations evolve.
On a final note, we’ve been nominally using a model of taxation patterned after more “advanced” western, developed economies with abysmal results as far as realizing meaningful revenue, for the very reasons of income disparity and corruption. What little has been collected has gone, for the most part, to fund Pakistan’s military. In absolute dollars, the amount spent there might not be “wrong” but it should be a far smaller fraction of the government’s revenues than it has been and we’ve been shortchanged on education and internal development programs as a result.
The ultimate objective must be to increase revenues from those wealthy parts of our society who don’t pay their fair share of taxes. We need to focus on less easy-to-hide wealth than we presently do. Hence the model proposed. Our issue is not one of fine-tuning our taxation model. It’s one of rebuilding something that is fundamentally broken.
As per World Bank report, Pakistan ranks 143/183 economies and need to do a lot to improve taxation, see details : http://www.doingbusiness.org/Data/ExploreEconomies /pakistan