There are countries that lack property taxes, but they tend to be communist (china) and you are only buying a 99 year lease. Also, the lack of property taxes doesn't work very well, as it encourages speculation and then sitting on then property doing much with it waiting for values to rise. Property taxes enforces mandatory deprecation (you have to make it productive enough to at least pay the tax) and also funds things like roads, infrastructure and schools without shady corrupt deals.

The 99 year lease is basically identical to ownership as people are exchanging the "lease agreements" like property titles. China hasn't decided what to do when the lease is up but in general it is highly unlikely they'd make you renew the full lease. Most likely they're going to start charging property tax.

humannature, you are probably hellbanned, so I can't reply to your comment directly.

Ok, yes, you are right...70 years, not 99; though there is some suspicion/optimism that the government will extend the leases indefinitely. The property tax in CQ/SH is only on second properties and easily avoided right now through transfers or sham divorces. It will be interesting to see if the gov is really serious about property taxes.

I didn't say anything about the good or bad of taxes, just asking why people are using a word when it shouldn't be.

Historical reasons? Delusions? Sales tactics?

The right to property has never been without responsibility. I can own a house but then I'm responsible for sharing the costs of infrastructure around the house. You would find lower property taxes in the states in areas with little infrastructure (I.e. the bush in Alaska).

Even the city state kings of the first communities needed to provide defense and such, taxation is the obvious way to do that. Taxation of property is quite reasonable compared to head taxes.

Because there's no value in having a word for a situation that basically no-one is in? Because despite your sophist argument there are huge practical differences between what normal people call "renting" and what normal people call "owning"?

Don't you have clothes that you own? Don't you own your food before you eat it?

If I buy a computer, I own it.

Far from a 'situation that basically no-one is in' I would say. I suppose what you meant is that basically no one really own their house. Well if it's the case, why use the word anyway?

Words have meaning. You can't just decide to apply a word to a situation where it doesn't apply and call it a day.

I own those things but that doesn't mean I have unlimited freedom to do whatever I want with them. I own my food but I couldn't sell it (I don't have the right licenses). I own my clothes but I still have to comply with the law when I do things with them. That laws/HOAs/etc. regulate what I can do with my flat does not feel substantially different.

Taxes too are orthogonal to ownership; where I live people treat the local government tax as another utility bill, like water or electricity (so when renting sometimes the landlord pays or sometimes the tenant does). If I owned a car I'd pay tax on it - but if I leased a car I'd also pay tax on it in the same way.

Words have meanings but are necessarily simplifications (just as a map cannot capture every detail of the territory). In legalese I lease my flat - but in English I own it, because how I use it and what I can and can't do with it has much more in common with something that I own than with something that I rent or lease.

You seem to think that the landlord in a regular rental situation is making you pay their taxes as well.