Land Value Taxation Campaign

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Land rent for public revenue

Who owns the country? The secretive companies hoarding England’s land

E-mail Print PDF

“Multi-million pound corporations with complex structures have purchased the very ground we walk on – and we are only just beginning to discover the damage it is doing to Britain.” This article in the Guardian is an edited extract of Who Owns England?: How We Lost Our Green and Pleasant Land and How to Take It Back, by Guy Shrubsole, published on 2 May by HarperCollins. To order a copy, go to guardianbookshop.com or call 0330 333 6846.

Taking back the land would require full-on LVT at a hefty rate, with the scrapping of most other taxes. It would be interesting to see what the author’s formula is. There is an informative website, https://whoownsengland.org/

 

Fear of immigration

E-mail Print PDF

The fear of immigration is explained by Ricardo's Law of Rent, which nobody understands any more. Incomers create a land shortage which tends towards higher rents and drives down wages. This is not a problem if a system of land value taxation (LVT) is in place, because

  1. the rising rents become buoyant source of public revenue to pay for infrastructure and services
  2. the immigrants add to the stock of wealth being produced.
  3. land and premises are always available at competitive rents, so that there is never a shortage of work opportunities or places to live.

Otherwise, immigration becomes a source of conflict, as the newcomers are competing for homes and jobs.

Here is a video which explains Ricardo's Law of Rent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyv1xYDWAxk

The EU should have required both Freedom of Movement and LVT. The first without the second is a recipe for failure.

 

Punishing the Republic of Ireland

E-mail Print PDF

Few, if any, commentators have remarked that with a so-called hard border, the main victims will be inside the Republic, since the EU's rules will restrict the flow of goods INTO the Republic. If they have to come from Continental Europe, either they have to be driven across the congested roads of the Midlands and North Wales, or they will have to be shipped direct. The latter is going to be much more expensive than getting the goods from the UK.

Compare the distances.

Dublin to Rotterdam is 667 NM, sailing time 2 days, 3 hours
Dublin to Liverpool is 126 NM, sailing time 10 hours
Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead is 61 NM, sailing time 3 hours.

The differences will add very substantially to transport costs, which will add to the price of goods in the Republic. To make matters worse for those in the Republic - it has no large container port comparable to Southampton or Felixtowe. There is not the traffic to support one, so the economies of very large container vessels will not be achieved. One would have thought that Vradakar would have had his eye on the ball and was concerned about this. Seemingly not.

 

Responsorium 14 January #2

E-mail Print PDF

I see a grain of truth in there, but this does not make it a valid or complete argument. In general, from an efficiency point of view one should tax those goods/service that respond the least (this, however, often clashes with equity considerations). Land, in an geographic sense, does not adjust.

Yes

However, in practice, there also a lot of margins of "productive land" that are affected by land taxes. For example, if my land produces less than the tax: I sell it to someone else, who then migrates, leaving the land without effective owner. And so, the land has no reverted back to no use (while it would have maybe produced marginally if I kept it). This is just to say that land is not necessarily so different....

A uniform land tax to pay for all government expenditure would drive agriculture to zero, and all landowners to bankruptcy. A geographically-varying land tax is really a tax of something else.

Land Value Tax is, as its name implies, a tax on the value of land. A uniform tax would be absurd. Land in Central London is worth thousands of times more, per unit area, than land in the Scottish Highlands. The substantive value of land is its annual rental value. The selling price is a derivative value. Selling price is indeed related to the rental value but depends on factors such as interest rates and expectations of changes in value and development possibilities. Land value tax, properly applied, is a tax on the annual rental value. The actual assessment is the gross annual rental value ie the market rental value plus any taxes payable on the property.

You are spot-on with your observation that tax cannot be more than the rental value of the land, otherwise the land will be abandoned. But this applies to all taxes payable – property taxes, income tax, corporation tax, fuel tax, VAT (the incidence is partly on the seller); you have to add them all together. That is why large tracts of most EU countries are now economic wastelands. The beauty of land value tax as a replacement for other taxes is that no tax is payable at the marginal site, so that production is optimised-.

Perhaps 3 centuries ago, a lot of productive land was in the hands of big landowners...

There is plenty of unused land today. Newcastle city centre, for example, is plastered with estate agents’ boards. Some of them have been there for many years. There are sites in the middle of Brighton which have been vacant for over thirty years, with planning consent for most of that time. You will find the same thing if you look around many industrial estates. You can see this for yourself if you take a walk round some of the more run-down areas where you live. Rents do not fall to market-clearing levels.

But perhaps the greatest argument against land tax is that is practically impossible to raise the amount of tax that is currently raised,  with land taxes alone. So, while on the margin one might consider raising taxes on land, it can never be the whole solution.

All taxes come out of land rent. This was first noted by the Physiocrats. It is a corollary of Ricardo’s Law of Rent. It has also been tested by studies such as those made for the Department of the Environment following the end of the 1980s Enterprise Zone scheme. In other words, if there is a reduction in tax, rents rise, in the aggregate, by about the same amount. So if all taxes were suddenly removed (for example, if a benevolent alien arrived from a distant planet and paid for all government expenditure), then total rents would rise by about the same amount as the tax that no longer had to be paid.

Because existing land values are depressed by taxation, you cannot project from these values and conclude that a land value tax could not raise sufficient revenue. On top of that is the issue that so much government expenditure consists of welfare payments needed to redress the collateral damage done by the tax system. It is not genuine expenditure, let alone investment. These are just transfer payments.

 

Responsorium 14 January #1

E-mail Print PDF

Our economy is these days simply has very little land as a necessary input.

If land is not necessary these days, why are people willing to pay £100 per square foot rent for offices in London’s West End and £3 million an acre for industrial land in West London. Are they wasting their money? Do you know something the tenants and purchasers do not? http://www.colliers.com/en-gb/uk/insights/offices-rents-map

So, other taxes are needed, which ones do you propose? 

None, you have based your argument on a misconception.

-- I was more commenting on needless grand words. One can signal one's intellect to those who don't know by using fancy words; one signals one's intellect to those who know by saying difficult things in the simplest way.  What is your game? 

Which words are you complaining about? My syntax is simple. Sentences are mostly not more than about 15 words and I avoid using subordinate clauses. I always prefer to use the simpler word if there is one available, but the subject is a technical one, after all. I have not lived in the UK for many years and so do not get much opportunity to hear contemporary street English.

-- My argument is not that there is no VAT fraud, but that in relative terms it has an inbuilt anti-fraud mechanism absent in many other taxes. Of course, it can go wron g, especially when there is no domestic seller/buyer to provide countervailing incentives. Hence VAT fraud often happens with internaitonal transactions....

VAT is made for fraud. The obvious one is payment in cash, or part payment in cash. The other loophole is registration and reclaiming input payments. An architect, for example, will buy things like cars, computers and cameras, which are legitimate business tools, but also have their private uses, and where is the line to be drawn? How many tradesmen have offered you a lower price for payment in cash. Are you one of those rare birds who insisted on paying the full amount? Or do you contribute to the 10% of VAT revenue which disappears in fraud?

Which economically and politically realistic taxes (non-land) do you think are less prone to fraud, and satisfy your canon? 

There aren’t any. That was the conclusion of both Smith and George. It is not ‘my’ canon. It is common-sense.

--As I argued, land as input has lost so much relevance in today's production, it provides no solution. This might have worked in the economy 300 years ago, when the tax menu was sales or land taxes, but now we h ave think more...

Land has lost its relevance, but people are still willing to pay £3 million an acre for somewhere to put up a few industrial sheds. How do you work that out?

 


We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. Cookies used for the essential operation of the site have already been set. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our Privacy Policy.

I accept cookies from this site

EU Cookie Directive Plugin Information