This is because:
First, government fund income not only refers to the income from the transfer of state-owned land use rights. The fund's income also includes additional income from education, construction fees for cultural undertakings, funds for the protection of the disabled, and local greening funds. Well, it depends on the structure of fund income. At present, the net income of land transfer fees in some places in China accounts for more than 60% of the government's extra-budgetary income, which can explain the characteristics of "land finance"
Two, the public revenue comes from land revenue, not fund income. Among the taxes, land value-added tax, urban land use tax, cultivated land occupation tax, deed tax, property tax, stamp duty, etc. Even some business taxes are related to land. "Land finance" does not simply refer to the land transfer fee for land transfer. According to the investigation of relevant institutions, the direct tax on land and the indirect tax brought by urban expansion in China account for 40% of the local budget revenue.
But generally speaking, the current national political system requires improving the quality of fiscal revenue, mainly to control the proportion of tax revenue in public fiscal revenue, strictly speaking, it should not be less than 60%, that is to say, the proportion of tax revenue should be the majority. The assessment index requires that the income of government funds should not exceed 40% of the public finance income.
PS: In fact, many developed countries in the world also rely on "land finance", but foreign countries mainly create fiscal revenue by levying property tax and property tax on existing land, which not only embodies fairness, but also ensures that the government has relatively stable fiscal revenue.