Techieman over at HPC says, re Fred Harrison's latest video clip, "Whether you believe in LVT or not, it's good to watch."
In response to which I posted my usual mini-essay, as follows:
"It's not a question of whether you 'believe' in LVT.
Firstly you have to understand what land values ARE (or were at least year's peak). Agricultural = £1 per sq yd; typical residential £200 per sq yd; outer London £1,000 per sq yd; and inner London up to £20,000 per sq yd.
Then you think about what drives relative values. I would suggest = value of local amenities/services x generosity of planning permission + scarcity value.
Finally, think about changes over time, over the last HP cycle, for example. As land values are a residual figure (total property value minus bricks and mortar), they actually fell 75% in the early nineties, since when they have risen five or ten fold, and are now falling again disproptionately (builders' land banks are down at least 50%, for example). This is the bubble element.
Now, we all now that higher interest rates reduce house prices. Therefore, if (at the bottom of the cycle - 1994 would have been a good time, the next opportunity will be in 2011 or so) the gummint had the commonsense to replace all property/wealth related taxes (C Tax, Business Rates, Stamp Duty, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax etc) with a fiscally neutral Land Value Tax of 5% or 10% on site-only land values, there would be little impact, winners and losers would cancel out.
In £ and pence, that would mean somebody in a little croft or an ex-council flat up North would pay £100 a year, and average family home would pay £1,000 to £2,000 a year and people in villas in Hampstead would pay £10,000 a year.
And if every year, site values were recalculated based on actual sales in preceding year, the minute a bubble started arising it would be dampened off again, as there would be a few people who don't want to pay a couple of hundred £ more just because an area is now fashionable (or whatever) who would sell up, so land prices and hence house prices would remain low and stable.
LVT would also be the ideal local tax - instead of being forced to pay for the COST of local services (via general taxation allocated by central government plus a top up in the form of Council Tax) regardless of their VALUE, property owners would only pay towards the VALUE of those services.
So out go 5-a-day-advisors and in come more bobbies on the beat. Out go climate change consultants and in come more lollipop ladies. Out go vanity schemes and white elephants, and in come better bus and train services. Out go sink comprehensives and in come grammar schools. And so on.
What's not to like?"
I forgot to add the usual caveat "Pensioners would not be required to pay their LVT up front; they would be allowed to defer it to be repaid out of their estates".
Put On Your Big Boy Pants, Maybe?
5 hours ago
38 comments:
I'm slowly becoming an LVT convert. Being quite a sceptic, I'm always looking for "but what about" questions.
One that occurs to me about land prices is how to calculate it, particularly in areas with low movements, or where unusual movements have occurred (like a riverside house is sold, but none inland).
But, as a means to dampen house prices, to correct things, it seems like one of the best. Interest rates are too clumsy and affect other things.
That makes a lot of sense. Although I do think the proviso regarding pensioners could be problematic, isn't it quite likely that for someone retired a long time the amount of back taxes owed would exceed the value of the estate?
R, nope.
The tax would average out at 2% of total property values, so unless somebody lived to be well over a hundred, the deferred LVT could always be recovered by selling the property (assuming the interest rate were less than annual modest increases in property values).
And if somebody lives longer than that, so what? Good luck to them, by the same token they will have collected £100,000 more in state pension than somebody with an average life expectancy.
Oh right, I was looking at the 5-10% figure for site only land values.
I still prefer a local sales tax to LVT to fund local services as it would bring in tax comeptition. But, I agree that if you are going to tax property, and that is a big 'if', then land values should be taxed, not buidlings. Buildings depreciate; they wear out and eventually need refurbishment of change of use or something. And it must be done so that people are not forced to sell just because they cannot afford to live somewhere they've lived for a long time just because external forces have driven up the land value.
Lola
"as there would be a few people who don't want to pay a couple of hundred £ more just because an area is now fashionable (or whatever) who would sell up, so land prices and hence house prices would remain low and stable."
If I understand this correctly, someone who's (a) not terribly well off and (b) has lived for a long time in a spot that has suddenly become "very desireable" is going to have to undertake the stress, cost and inconvenience of selling up and moving simply because they can no longer pay the increase in LVT that would inevitably follow. To me, this looks like Stalinism implemented via the market.
"I forgot to add the usual caveat "Pensioners would not be required to pay their LVT up front; they would be allowed to defer it to be repaid out of their estates".
So, it's IHT by another name then...
Anon, wot?
If an area becomes more desirable (over a period of years), who's to say that the people living there aren't perfectly happy to pay a few hundred quid more to stay there? If newcomers are happy to pay it, then by definition, it must be reasonable value for money, yes? Or perhaps they charge their kids rent for living there? Or move to a slightly smaller place in the same street? To how many people will this cause 'hardship'? A few per cent?
Doesn't the same apply to all mortgage borrowers if interest rates go up by a per cent or two? That's all we are talking about here. Or do you argue that homeowners are such a privileged class that they should have subsidised interest rates as well?
LVT is not IHT. I am opposed to IHT as it is double taxation. LVT is 'pay as you go towards the value of what you get qua home-owner'.
Would you describe Adam Smith or Ricardo or Henry George or Winston Churchill or Milton Friedman as 'Stalinists'?
(this rant continues on page 94)
"If an area becomes more desirable (over a period of years), who's to say that the people living there aren't perfectly happy to pay a few hundred quid more to stay there?"
But would it be just "afew hundred quid"? Take the areas of London that once were virtual slums and have since been "gentrified" - one would expect the land value to increase by orders of magnitude, and with it the LVT...
"If newcomers are happy to pay it, then by definition, it must be reasonable value for money, yes?"
It might be "reasonable" for what used to be investment bankers, but what about a retired postman for instance?
"Or move to a slightly smaller place in the same street? To how many people will this cause 'hardship'? A few per cent?"
They're still being forced to move - and this is more likely to impinge upon the less well off or retired. As for how many affected - in a rapidly improving city-centre area (Gas Street Basin in Birmingham for example) probably near 100%.
"Doesn't the same apply to all mortgage borrowers if interest rates go up by a per cent or two? That's all we are talking about here. Or do you argue that homeowners are such a privileged class that they should have subsidised interest rates as well?"
But it's not going to be a percent or two, is it? If the place you live qualifies at present as "typical residential" and rapidly becomes the equivalent of "outer London" you're looking at 500%. And no, I don't think that houseowners should be treated as privileged in any way, but the difference between your idea of LVT and mortgage is that an existing houseowner doesn't have a mortgage arbitrarily imposed upon them post facto.
You also need to check your arithmetic, unless I've misunderstood what you're saying... (Not impossible!) :-)
"Firstly you have to understand what land values ARE (or were at least year's peak). Agricultural = £1 per sq yd; typical residential £200 per sq yd; outer London £1,000 per sq yd; and inner London up to £20,000 per sq yd.
...a fiscally neutral Land Value Tax of 5% or 10% on site-only land values, there would be little impact, winners and losers would cancel out.
In £ and pence, that would mean somebody in a little croft or an ex-council flat up North would pay £100 a year, and average family home would pay £1,000 to £2,000 a year and people in villas in Hampstead would pay £10,000 a year."
So, a villa in Hampstead would pay 5 - 10% of £20,000 per square yard? On that basis £10,000 would buy you between 10 and 20 square yards - somewhat "bijou" for Hampstead unless my knowledge of London is letting me down and it would be costed at a mere £1,000 per square yard at which point they'd get 100 to 200 square yards - still a tad on the claustrophobic side IMHO.
(continued after the sports pages)
Oh.. And re IHT.. I was joking. :-)
You have misunderstood the maths. Go back and check your figures.
The tax would average out at 2% of total property values, so unless somebody lived to be well over a hundred, the deferred LVT could always be recovered by selling the property (assuming the interest rate were less than annual modest increases in property values).
I would also like to see a LVT, and I understand the political motivation for exempting pensioners. However if I were in charge, I wouldn't do this, because:
* it is unfair to other taxpayers who have to cover the shortfall now because some get to defer their tax.
* it complicates the tax system.
* do we means test it? If not, are we happy to let the Duke of Westminster (for example) defer his LVT?
* It still assumes property prices will increase. What if they don't? Surely the whole point of LVT is to stop land values increasing unless there is a change in planning permissions, or a benefit from improved public infrastructure. This will not happen everywhere.
* Even if the property value increases sufficiently, what if the person dies with large debts?
* If the risk of the estate being insufficient to cover the back tax is so small, let the private sector take this risk, i.e. pensioners can use equity release to cover current tax bills.
* I don't think those who freely choose to have a very low income while owning a high value but unproductive asset are the most deserving of our sympathy or assistance.
Ah, yes... outer London was £1,000/sqyd not £2,000, thus for £10K you'd get 200 - 400 square yards. Not exactly generous.
I was always under the impression that one of the better features of a tax (if that's not an oxymoron) is that it should be in some way related to the ability of the sufferer to pay it. LVT seems to be nothing more than "Rates" on steroids, ie massively regressive.
Anon, the maths is simple.
You overlook that £1,000 per sq yd for Outer London will fall to (say) a quarter of that over the next couple of years. Typical plot 250 sq yds x £250/sq yd x 5% = £3,125, a tad more than Band G or H council tax (but no more SDLT or IHT!!). People in crofts or ex-council flats will pay only £100 or £200 (but no more Council Tax Benefit or discounts!!).
Or, to put it another way, total current receipts from all the taxes that LVT should replace (primarily Council Tax, SDLT, IHT) = £30 bn per annum.
Total value of all UK residential property (land + buildings) at 2007 peak = £4,000 billion.
Ergo, the tax will be approx. 0.75% of the 2007 total values. If values fall by half LVT would average out at 1.5% of future values. If you strip out buildings, it might be 5% of underlying site only land values.
LVT would be no more or less 'regressive' than mortgage repayments, and a lot less regressive that Council Tax. I don't see what point you are trying to make.
Ed, I sort of agree, but ...
* The roll-up option is a political thing. Objection Number One is always "But what about the little old ladies!", I'd like to get that out of the way first.
* The government has known future liabilities, i.e. future pensions. It can match known future receipts from LVT out of estates with those liabilities.
* The roll up option only applies where the local council gets first charge over the property.
* Of course values would continue to rise, just a lot more gradually.
* These equity release schemes are a rip off. Far better for the government to charge a low, fair interest rate than throw pensioners to the wolves.
Mark,
Yes, the maths is simple, but the reasonableness or regressive nature of the tax stands or falls on whether land values really *do* collapse to 25% of today's values.
If you're right, then I withdraw all my objections as the figures that fall out of the end of the calculation appear to be reasonable and fair. If you're wrong however...
The point I was originally trying to make was that using your quoted present land values and suggested tax rates returned excessively high LVT figures.
That's all.
Interesting idea about matching with future liabilities - I hadn't thought about that. Council having first claim is good, but could result in some interesting legal issues if the pensioner has a mortgage or other secured debt.
I view land as an expense not an asset (probably because I don't own any!), thus I would prefer land to continually fall in price, assuming no improvement has taken place. Unrealistic I know, comes from working too long in the IT industry where deflation is the norm.
If equity release schemes are a rip off, then we need more competition in that market. Fair interest rate: LIBOR?
BTW: You said council rather than treasury. Will LVT be a local tax or a national tax? In other words, can local councils set a different rate? One huge advantage of a national LVT is that it automatically gives a tax advantage to deprived areas, and thus encourages economic development outside London and the SE. However, this would require significant redistribution by central government, if public services in the more marginal land areas are to be funded.
Anon, agreed. If house prices remain frozen as they are, the LVT would be plus/minus 2% of current site only land values.
Don't forget:
Council Tax = mixture of Poll Tax (regressive), property size tax and jealousy surcharge (Labour over-subsidises Labour controlled councils).
SDLT = mixture of property value tax, capital gains tax and jealousy surcharge.
Inheritance Tax = jealousy surcharge that hits the people in the middle hardest (three-quarters of it relates to property values).
So all these taxes are inherently unfair, but to different people in different ways. LVT is just the flattened out, economically efficient replacement.
And if you agree that Big Fat Tax Cuts are in order, let's double the income tax personal allowance and cut the worst taxes (VAT, Employer's NI) first.
Ed, OT1H, LVT is the ideal local tax, but OTOH, as you point out, having a national single rate and redistributing would be fairer. But that then disincetiveses councils from getting Value For Money. Hmmm.
So perhaps we could have councils retaining half of receipts and pooling/redistributing the other half?
Don't forget that Business Rates (a crude form of LVT) collectd locally but pooled at national level and dished out again.
Anyway, when I am Chancellor I will ask the Local Government Association to sort this out, it's up to them really.
To the anonymous poster at 00:31, I've never really understood the "ability to pay argument." By definition, all taxes reflect the ability to pay, because if people couldn't pay them, they wouldn't generate any revenue.
When the argument is used to justify income tax, the implication seems to be that overall income level correlates to disposible income level, but two people with the same income could have wildly different disposible incomes, expecially if one owns their home outright and the other is paying a mortgage or renting.
In the UK, the control of land is far more concentrated than income, so if you want a tax which falls more heavily on the wealthy, LVT would do that far more effectively than income tax.
The profit margin of grade 2 agricultural land, for arable use, is between £0 and £150 per acre (depending on external factors such a yield and international prices).
Presently, the value of such land is £3500 - £4000 per acre, assuming zero chance of planning permission and suchlike.
Thus, a council with a mixed rural / town mix, could charge between £175 - £400 per acre in tax. As you can see, the figures don't add up.
Grade 1 land (mainly used for veg growth) has higher profit per acre, but correspondingly higher value. Moreland has a much lower cost per acre, but virtually zero, or minimal, profit potential.
So, hardly any farmer (irrespective of size) could afford to continue farming. While it may be possible that the land would thus depreciate in price sufficiently quickly that farmers were saved from bankruptcy before the first LVT bill came in, this leads to another problem.
Modern farming involves huge capital investment in machinery and modern buildings for storage. This capital is raised by borrowing against land. So, even with a massive land price crash, farmers would be in deep shit for existing commitments.
What you would end up with was a tax system that favored huge landowners who cam spread this investment over tens of thousands or acres, and Aristorcats who own grouse moors whis LVT rate would be virtually zero. All the small and medium guys would be taxed out of their homes and business'.
Not a small percentage, you understand, all of them.
This doesn't appear very fair to me...
HH, it is easy to pick holes in something if you wilfully misunderstand it. I have never, ever suggested that residential and farmland in the same area would be averaged out (nor have I ever heard any sensible LVT proponent suggest this).
As to your maths, if you scrapped CFP payments, the market value of farmland would fall to half what it is now, say £2,000/acre.
Personally, I wouldn't bother taxing farmland at all, but even if you did tax it at (say) 5%, the value would be depressed even further to under £1,000 per acre, so the tax would be £50 per acre, absolute tops.
As there are around 50 million acres of farmland, times that by £50 = £2.5 billion, frankly it's not worth the hassle collected it.
Or as a fair compromise, the first £x,000 in value per acre would be exempt, so that only the truly profitable land were taxed, and marginal farmland, sheep farms on hillsides, grousemoors, wetlands, forests etc would be completely exempt.
I'm not willfully misunderstanding it ~ you're original post referred to agricultural land and then went on to give the 5-10% figure. You didn't state that it would be exempt, or whatever.
Land prices would fall if CAP was scrapped, but this could be phased out very simply over the standard write off cycle so the fall in prices wouldn't cause the 'negative equity' issue ~ it would take us a few years to get out of the EU (and thus CAP) / negotiate new trade only deals, so farmers would have this period to equalize things.
£50 per acre could still wipe out profits in all but the 'bumper crop here / rubbish crop elsewhere in the world' years. That's a pretty high tax rate for a business who's only crime is to use land that, if it's to be classed as 'agricultural land' couldn't be used for anything else (i.e. if it could, it would have a higher LVT rate).
The effect would still be that working small and medium farmers would be taxed out of existence, and lots of jolly bankers could pick ap a few acres at a bargain price so that their daughter could have a horse and their wife could play at being Hugh Farnley Fartypants.
All caused by a change in the tax system....
HH, I mentioned the low value of farmland to illustrate the incredible disparity in land values depending on where they are and the use to which they can be put.
I have always said that I would strongly recommend exempting farmland, or at least exempting the first couple of thousand pounds in value per acre, because of exactly the consequences that you outline.
(In any event, tenant farmers can afford to pay an average rent of over £40/acre and remain viable businesses.)
Well, the tenant farmers would still be paying rent + lvt, just as land owners would be paying business loans for land + lvt. These costs are factored into the profit margins I mentioned.
Harry Haddock, I don't quite see your reasoning.
You say that with LVT, land will be more attractive to people using it for leisure than farming, but as the underlying costs wouldn't change, why do we currently have tenant farmers? Surely you theory would say that tenant farmers would have already been priced out.
I've also yet to see a good reason why we should be going out of our way to take as much of the tax burden as we can off farming, as opposed to other activities.
You say that with LVT, land will be more attractive to people using it for leisure than farming
No, I'm suggesting that farmers could be taxed out of business, land prices depressed, and snapped up for leisure use by people who could afford the premium
but as the underlying costs wouldn't change,
Eh? You are adding a tax on land that doesn't exist currently. That is an increased costs. Tenants would pay existing rents PLUS this new tax. If you are suggesting that landlords wouldn't be able to pass this on, then they would simply sell the land as it wouldn't be a worthwhile investment.
I've also yet to see a good reason why we should be going out of our way to take as much of the tax burden as we can off farming, as opposed to other activities.
You're not. Your increasing tax on one business sector while reducing it for others. The exact opposite of what you are suggesting. Farmers pay taxes on profits just like everyone else. Now they pay taxes just for existing disproportionately to their profits, when compared to other business'.
HH, even if we did have LVT on farmland (which I am against in principle, Paul Lockett opposing), it would be payable by the landlord, not the tenant.
The landlord cannot charge more than market rent. If he tried to 'pass on' the LVT by bumping up the rent from £40 rent per acre to £40 rent plus (say) £30 LVT, the tenant farmer would just throw in the towel.
You have to see this like interest; if a landowner paid £6,000/acre for some land because he got carried away at the auction, and is locked into a fixed rate of 7% payable to the bank, he still cannot charge a higher rent/acre than the owner of a neighbouring (and otherwise identical) farm, who may have inherited it years ago and has no mortgage on it.
Finally, you may like to refer to the works of Dr Duncan Pickard, UKIP member, sheep farmer and staunch supporter of LVT. He knows far more about this than either you or I, his point is that it's the stupid DEFRA/EU regulations that impose the biggest costs on farmers.
Sure, so the landowner can't increase the rental beyond the market rate. Thus, the market rate for renting agricultural land would be sweet fanny adams.
So, as a land owner, what do I do? I sell up and put the money in an Icelandic bank. As agricultural rents are now so low, the only people buying would be people who wanted to use the land and could afford the premium. So, in effect, the tenant farmer gets worked over.
I will investigate Duncan Pickard's writings, although I agree that DEFRA / EU have screwed farmers in conjunction with corporations such as the 'ethical' Co-op bank who own thousands upon thousands of prime land and bank the CAP subsidy. It is these corporations that the NFU speaks on behalf of ~ corporatism at it's very worse.
For your average small to medium farm owned by a farmer, CAP simply increases your capital costs (due to the market) while screwing over the customer.
And don't get me started on the amount of EY regulation that the twats in Whitehall then gold plate....
HH, AFAIAC, it is important to get rid of CFP subsidies and EU/DEFRA nonsense. As a quid pro quo, I fully agree that farmland should be exempt from LVT.
HH: Tenants would pay existing rents PLUS this new tax. If you are suggesting that landlords wouldn't be able to pass this on, then they would simply sell the land as it wouldn't be a worthwhile investment.
You are right with the second part. The landlords couldn't pass it on, because in general they will be charging the market rent already. If there were scope for the landlord to increase the rent, most would have done it already. The idea that they would sell doesn't quite add up - they'll be keeping less rent, but the land values will be lower too, so there isn't any real advantage to be gained from selling.
Your increasing tax on one business sector while reducing it for others. The exact opposite of what you are suggesting.
I'm suggesting a system of taxation on the basis that it is fairer and economically beneficial. One of the arguments against it is that it comparatively disadvantages one industry compared to the current tax regime. I don't see why that is a valid argument against the change. Repealing the Corn Laws had the same effect, but it don't make it the wrong thing to do. Propping up one industry just drags others down.
I'm yet to be convinced that LVT would impact farmers that badly anyway. The continued existence of tenant farmers says it wouldn't.
Re: land rents ~ see my last post.
HH: Sure, so the landowner can't increase the rental beyond the market rate. Thus, the market rate for renting agricultural land would be sweet fanny adams.
If the LVT were set at 100% of the rental value, that would be the case. Personally, I wouldn't envisage ever going to the 100% level for reasons of practicality, but I'll assume 100% for the sake of argument.
So, as a land owner, what do I do? I sell up and put the money in an Icelandic bank.
If we are in a 100% LVT situation, there won't be a selling price to be had, in the same way that you don't pay an upfront price when you rent a house.
As agricultural rents are now so low, the only people buying would be people who wanted to use the land and could afford the premium. So, in effect, the tenant farmer gets worked over.
In your previous comment, the landlord seemed to be a hard nosed businessman looking for the best return, so if somebody is in a position to outbid the tenant farmer, why didn't the landholder deal with them previously?
For your average small to medium farm owned by a farmer, CAP simply increases your capital costs (due to the market) while screwing over the customer.
In effect, CAP subsidy is a negative LVT. Instead of charging land holders, it pays land holders. Removing CAP subsidy would have the same effect as increasing LVT and you seem to be saying that reducing the CAP subsidy might not be a bad thing.
Example:
Current market rate for field A (rental) £50
Current sale value for field A £4000
LVT introduced @ 5%, land value drops to £2000
LVT on Field A ( assuming MW's system) = 5% 0f £1000 = £50
Land would have to drop to a fraction of it's current value for LVT not to approach 100% of rental values ~ and that's allowing Marks generous (in your eyes) 5% max take and first £1000 exemption.
Good point about the hard nosed landlord. He doesn't have to put it in a dodgy Icelandic bank now, he can go straight to the stockbroker and rent him his play toy.
Tenant farmer gets screwed over.
There is an alternative to paying people to own land, and taxing them to own land. It's called leaving them alone.
(you can give the classic Geolibertarian 'you can't create land' speech now, if you like ~ while I go and magic up some gold from thin air and marvel how God cleared the rock and tree covered ancient Britain for farmers without the input of human labour)
HH, "There is an alternative to paying people to own land, and taxing them to own land. It's called leaving them alone."
With specific regard to farmers/farmland, I agree. But this post was mainly about residential land; this is about a) keeping land values low and stable (thus preventing asset price/credit bubbles and hence mitigating impact of 'credit crunches'), b) a good way of making sure that council's only spend money sensibly and c) simplification.
It may well be the case that a large part of ag land value is because of the efforts of previous occupiers. You cannot say the same for residential land values.
To be fair, I was being deliberately annoying. It's Friday, and I want to go to the pub, but I'm stuck here listening to excuses why none of my customers feel like paying me any of the money they owe me, while trying to get some annoying database to do my will.
I hate Fridays.
HH, I'm a bit confused. You complained about the Co-op bank owning lots of prime land to get the subsidies, then say that agricultural rents are now so low, the only people buying would be people who wanted to use the land and could afford the premium. So, in effect, the tenant farmer gets worked over.
If we go from paying subsidies (negative LVT as Paul said) to charging LVT, we all agree that land will drop in value. Is this not in the interest of the tenant farmer, who may now be able to buy the land they work cheaply from the landowner (e.g. Co-op) ?
Land would have to drop to a fraction of it's current value for LVT not to approach 100% of rental values
100% rental value would imply zero sale price, by definition. Your calculation doesn't quite make sense because it implies somebody would pay £2000 and then pay £50 LVT, when they could just pay £50 rent.
Good point about the hard nosed landlord. He doesn't have to put it in a dodgy Icelandic bank now, he can go straight to the stockbroker and rent him his play toy. Tenant farmer gets screwed over.
So if we have these stockbrokers who are prepared to outbid the tenant farmers, why do we still have tenant farmers? I think that shows the apocolyptic justifications for giving handouts to farmers aren't really true.
There is an alternative to paying people to own land, and taxing them to own land. It's called leaving them alone. ... you can give the classic Geolibertarian 'you can't create land' speech now
I'd rather give the classic "land is the property of the Crown and the rental value should be collected by the Crown" speech.
Post a Comment