jordan pulse -

By Ahmad Abdelbaset Rjoub

Jordanian writer and researcher

In the corridors of Jordan’s House of Representatives and across public debate tables, heated discussions rage over the new draft law for the Building and Land Tax. The proposed legislation, introduced as a response to the suffocating financial crisis plaguing municipalities, has turned into a battleground between advocates of fiscal ref: orm and defenders of social justice.

The scene resembles a massive construction site, where the government attempts to lay the bricks of a new tax system while citizens fear these bricks may become too heavy for their shoulders. The Egyptian minister confidently explains that the new system will be "fairer and less reliant on human discretion," but critical voices echo: "Justice requires more than good intentions."

On the official side, arguments stand in formation like soldiers in battle. Talks of an integrated electronic system, property valuations based on clear criteria instead of subjective assessments, and incentives for green and heritage projects dominate. "This isn’t just an amendment—it’s a qualitative leap," as official documents describe it. The 80% discount on owner-occupied homes emerges as the hero in the government’s narrative, while the villain of "unjust taxation" fades into the background.

Yet the picture isn’t entirely rosy. In local cafés and on social media, other fears take shape. There’s the story of Abu Mohammed, owner of a small agricultural plot inherited from his father, who wonders how he’ll pay taxes on land that generates no income. There are also the dreams of middle-class citizens, for whom homeownership is their last bastion of dignity—now threatened by the prospect of property becoming an unbearable burden.

The paradox lies in the fact that both sides speak the language of justice. The government sees fairness in a unified, comprehensive tax system, while opponents argue that true justice must account for disparities among citizens. The pressing question arises: Can a tax be fair when its rate is fixed, regardless of the owner’s income or ability to pay?

Looming in the background is the municipal crisis, haunting the entire debate. Amman’s billion-dinar debt isn’t just a number—it’s the uncollected garbage piling up, the unrepaired streets, and the deteriorating services. But do municipalities have the right to save themselves at the expense of citizens? Or are there unexplored alternatives?

We see that the problem isn’t the tax itself, but how it’s implemented. Successful tax systems worldwide combine efficient collection with flexible application. The real estate question: Why no exemptions for small properties? Why not link taxes to the owner’s ability to pay?

Municipal officials counter that "the situation can no longer tolerate delay." The numbers speak for themselves: rising debt, declining services, and budgets unable to meet basic needs. But does this dire reality absolve the need for a careful balance between municipal demands and citizens’ rights?

The most alarming scenario revolves around the fate of small property owners. Genuine fears persist that the tax could shift from a tool for funding services into an indirect mechanism for dispossession, as low-income owners struggle to pay. Critics paint a grim picture: families forced to sell inherited land to settle taxes, a shrinking middle class, and real estate wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.

Amid this tension, one truth stands undeniable: Any real reform requires societal consensus. Global experience proves that tax systems succeed when people believe in their fairness—not when imposed by force. Perhaps the time has come for a comprehensive national dialogue, where all voices are heard and all interests weighed before this law’s ink dries.

Ultimately, the equation remains tough: How do we balance urgent fiscal reform with the fundamental right to social justice? The answer may lie not at either extreme, but in a middle ground that reconciles all interests. True reform springs from common ground, not conflicting positions.

Conclusion: Toward Consensus-Based Solutions

The dispute isn’t about the need for fiscal reform but its mechanisms and fairness. Proposed recommendations include:

Adjusting tax rates to account for income and usage type.
Exempting undeveloped land or deferring taxes until income is generated.
Judicial oversight of property valuations.
A public dialogue ensuring municipalities and citizens participate in decision-making.
The bigger question: Will the municipalities’ financial crisis be managed at the expense of ordinary citizens, or are there alternatives—like fighting corruption and improving collection efficiency? The answer will determine whether this law is true "reform" or an unjust burden.