Saturday, 22 May 2010

[For IanB] Let's make all taxes voluntary!

OK, let's respond to IanB's accusation that a tax on land values is a tax on imaginary values.

As background, over at Tim W's, IanB said that "The [economic] situation is only likely to [improve] when western mankind stops thinking it normal to pay a hundred thousand pounds for a pile of old bricks" so we are agreed on that. Now all we have to do is educate people as to the drawbacks of basing the economy on house price bubbles, and suggest a system that will prevent them arising.

Lesson One: Some Taxes Are Voluntary

If you know about the history of tax, you will know that Stamp Duty on contracts and share transactions used to be an entirely voluntary tax. The gimmick was, if you did not pay the 0.5% of the contract value, you could not later sue the other party under the terms of the contract, so most purchasers paid it. Sometimes the vendor paid it if, for example, the purchase price was payable in instalments.

Lesson Two: Let's Make All Taxes Voluntary

Here are a few ideas on what it would look like if taxes were voluntary:

1. An employee can choose whether to pay Employee's National Insurance or not. If he doesn't want to pay it, then he is not entitled to unemployment benefit, state pension etc. For lower paid workers, the state pension is actually a good investment; for higher paid people it is a lousy investment.

2. An employee can choose whether to have income tax deducted from his salary. If he doesn't want to pay it, then he is not entitled to take his employer to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal, is not entitled to statutory redundancy pay, statutory maternity/paternity pay etc. I suspect that unless you are taking a job with an employer who is likely to go bust, or you are planning to start a family in the next few months, most people would prefer to pocket the extra 20 or 40 per cent of their income.

3. If you buy goods, you can choose whether to pay VAT on top. If you do, you get the benefit of 'consumer protection', i.e. you can sue for faulty goods etc, and the local council will collect and dispose of your old goods for no further charge. So it's a bit like insurance, take it or leave it. Seeing as I am happy to pay a tenner to have an old mattress taken away, and usually laugh off suggestions that I take out 5-year cover for an additional 5 per cent of the purchase price, 17.5 per cent looks lousy value to me.

4. A business can choose whether to pay corporation tax on its profits; if it does not do so, then it cannot take its customers to court for non-payment and cannot take its suppliers to court for faulty goods or non-delivery etc. On the 'customer' side, they can just make sure the customers pay cash in advance; and on the 'supplier' side, they can either just risk it (by paying on delivery); or just choose to deal with suppliers who have also opted out of corporation tax, so these transactions would operate on the basis of trust, reputation etc.

I happen to know of a large Japanese corporation, which as a matter of tradition and policy, Does Not Sue, no matter how flagrant the breach by a customer or supplier. They just put the word around, and refuse to ever deal with them again. If that corporation is sued, it will always settle out of court.

5. Finally, let's imagine we rolled all wealth and property-related taxes into a tax on land values. Instead of paying Stamp Duty Land Tax when you buy, Council Tax, TV licence fee and Insurance Premium Tax as you go along; and capital gains tax when you sell a non-main residence or Inheritance Tax when you die; we could have a flat tax of (say) one per cent of the value of the land and buildings that are registered in your name at HM Land Registry. This would be fiscally neutral, by the way.

If you don't want to pay the land tax, then 'the state' is no longer required to fulfil its part of the bargain, and deletes your name from HM Land Registry and the land becomes common land again and defaults to the state. If you remain there, you lose the right to have other people evicted from what you considered to be 'your' land, in fact the state can evict you yourself unless you are paying market rent. Similarly, if you stop paying and later kill a burglar, that is not self-defence but straightforward murder.

Lesson Three: Which Taxes Would People Pay Voluntarily?

It strikes me, that if we made all taxes voluntary and matched them up with the benefits that arise to you under whichever transaction or state of affairs give rise to the tax, the only taxes that people would pay would be Employee's National Insurance (as a government-insured savings scheme for the lower paid); they might pay VAT on new goods (if the rate were dropped to about 1 per cent, which covers the cost/hassle of refuse collection and the likelihood of them being stolen and the police recovering them undamaged) and the land value tax.

Of course, the 1 per cent property value tax that I suggested is a derived figure - but seeing as revenues from all the other taxes would plummet and the state has got to get money from somewhere, it would keep nudging up the rate (to different levels in different areas, depending how desirable they were) until it reached a level where receipts started to drop again, i.e. because people actually abandoned their house and went to live with relatives. Those are not imaginary values - that is how monopolists operate (bearing in mind that 'the state' by definition is a monopoly).

It would be almost impossible for the tax to ever go past the top of the Laffer Curve, where houses are abandoned, seeing as the receipts from the tax would be used to defray the small amount that 'the state' actually spends on core functions, and the rest would be paid out as a Citizen's Income, so by definition the average family in the average house would be neither net taxpayers nor net welfare recipients. it would amount to a modest net transfer from people who want to live in a desirable area or who want to have a big garden to people who want to/can only afford to live in a less desirable area or live in a block of flats.

Lesson Four: Somebody Is Bound To Leave A Comment Saying...

"... yeah but what about my lawnmower? Will you make me pay tax on that, because if it is stolen, the police will track down and punish the thieves and return it to me? So 'the state' protects my title to the lawnmower!"

Well, in practice, the police probably won't, and 'the state' doesn't. Secondly, if you are of a nervous disposition, you can take out voluntary private contents insurance; if the lawnmower gets stolen (or damaged) then you can claim back on the insurance.

If you wanted, we could roll this into the bundle of state-provided benefits that you would get if you paid VAT on it when you bought it. If you think that a one-off payment of £35 on a £200 lawnmower is a fair price for [the probability it will be stolen in the next twenty years] x [the likelihood of the police recovering it undamaged], then feel free to pay it. Or you might think that an annual insurance premium of £100 (or whatever) to insure all your family's worldly chattels against theft, fire, accidental damage etc is far better value and go for that instead.

17 comments:

Ian B said...

That's amazing Mark. You started off claiming you were going to talk about whether your land value is taxing an imaginary value, and then you didn't.

Well done.

I don't think yo've quite grasped what I meant. George, like Marx, developed his theory based on Ricardo. Ricardo believed that value comes from the productive value (in corn, in the agrarian model he was using) of land plot. That is, the rental value is the productive value of one man's land minus the subsistence level (marginal land); so if a man needs one unit of corn to just about survive, and his land (presumably the maximum sized plot he can farm by himself) produces two units, the rental value is 2-1=1 unit.

The problem is, this isn't actually true.

Ricardo thought you could objectively measure the rental value of land, and that's why George thought that, and that's why you think that. But you can't. Rental values in a free market (we don't live in a free market, but that's not the issue here) are set the same way as all other prices- as momentary subjective transaction values. There is no way to divine an objective value for any good.

Ricardo thought, you see, that once he's discovered this objective value of land, he could derive all other prices from it. The land value set the wage value of the worker (his Iron Law) and then he could use that via a Labour Theory Of Value to prove the set the price of cheese or steam engines.

But it's not true. LAter economists realised that value is subjective and momentary and codified that as the theory of marginal utility. Ricardo was wrong, Marx was wrong, George was wrong and thus, sorry, you're wrong as well.

That's what I meant about imaginary values. You're trying to tax something that you think exists all the time (the objective productive value of land) but it doesn't actually exist so you can't tax it. All this other crap about whether the police will protect your land but not your lawnmower, or capturing supposed externalities, that's just a big edifice of justification to try to justify a theory which is flat wrong.

Voluntary taxes is all very interesting, but nothing to do with land value being imaginary whatsoever.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Ian B: "Voluntary taxes is all very interesting, but nothing to do with land value being imaginary whatsoever."

OK, I have done my best to respond to your questions, and now invite you to answer: Out of that list of taxes, which one would you be most prepared to pay? Don't tell me which taxes you would like other people to pay, tell me which ones you would be willing to pay.

Let's argue the principle before we argue how it would be calculated, remembering that a monopolist does not need to calculate or justify anything - he just increases the price to the revenue-maximising level.

It is still not clear to me how you explain why the rent of a bog-standard 1930s semi down the road from me is £18,000 a year; but the rent for a physically identical bog-standard 1930s semi in the wilds of Newcastle might only be £9,000 a year.

Do you fancy visiting all the tenants down the road from me and asking them why they don't just move to the wilds of Newcastle?

Do you fancy explaining to them they they only 'imagine' that the benefits that accrue them because they live in the outskirts of London are worth double the benefits that would accrue to them if they abandoned their well-paid jobs in London and moved into a physically identical hosue Up North?

If so, then I wish you the best of luck :-)

NickM said...

Mark,
For a short story on what Ian calls" momentary subjective value" I suggest "Paycheck" by Philip K Dick.

Robin Smith said...

Gentlemen. Lets get the idea of value straight. George never said any of what IanB claims. Marx did say this and he was indeed a very confused man. I don't know what Ricardo says but he did make a gross error by claiming that wages and interest are paid from capital and that is why today we think immigrants are a problem not a boon among other Malthusian doctrines that mysteriously prevail, even though are found to be utter nonsense if examined carefully. We don't examine much carefully though do we? You can find out how well he defined value here. You may need to read the whole of Part II but will find yourself unconfused if you manage it.

Part II -- The Nature of Wealth

Can't be bothered to read it? Then you will never know it. Your call.

Mark Wadsworth said...

NickM:

a) Can you explain to us how that story justifies the taxation of incomes and production as opposed to user charges?

As to this 'momentary subjective value'...

b) Isn't it a core belief of Home-Owner-Ism that 'house prices can only go up'? Do people buy cars or lawnmowers in the belief that 'the value of cars or lawnmowers can only go up'?

c) Isn't it true that tenants or mortgagees hand over a sum of cash every month equivalent to what they consider to be the 'momentary subjective value' of exclusive possession of that plot of land? You are always free to give notice to quit or to declare yourself bankrupt and give the keys back to the bank.

d) Isn't it also true that under a Georgist tax system, nobody is forced to pay more than the 'momentary subjective value' of exclusive possession of each plot of land? You are always free to sell it or give it to somebody else if you think that the tax demanded is too high.

Ian B said...

(b) Yes. They are wrong. The attempt to prove them right just fucked up the economy very very badly indeed.

(c) Tenants hand over a sum which they consider to be less than or equal to their momentary subjective opinion of that plot of land. Mortgagees are repaying a debt which is less than or equal to their subjective value of the land at the moment they signed the mortgage contract.

(d) No it is not true. You are forcing them to pay a rent to the State, assessed by the State, under threat of being dispossessed. What the state assigned tenant thinks the land is worth doesn't come into it. You (as the State) set the rent arbitrarily, and if they can't afford it they get kicked out.

At no point do they get to mutually agree a rental contract. It's pay up or fuck off, isn't it Mark? And nowhere can they get security of ownership by buying land, because they are a State tenant wherever they go, and the State is always their rentier.

Mark Wadsworth said...

IanB, glad we can sort-of-agree on (b) and (c). You don't appear to have answer my question as to which of these taxes you would be willing to pay (or whether you prefer the Socialist option of inventing taxes that you want other people to pay) but you are a guest so fair enough.

As to (d), allow me to paraphrase what you said:

Let's look at land 'ownership' first:

"You are forcing [tenants or mortgagees] to pay [rent of mortgage repayments] to the [landlord or the bank], assessed by [the landlord or the bank], under threat of being dispossessed. What the [tenant or mortgagee] thinks the land is worth doesn't come into it [but at least he can move out]. You [as the landlord or bank] set [the rent or mortgage repayments] rent arbitrarily, and if they can't afford it they get kicked out...."

Now let's look at income tax:

"You are forcing [wealth creators] to pay [a large proportion of the wealth they create] to the State, assessed by the State, under threat of being dispossessed. What the [wealth creator mutually agrees with his customers or employer] doesn't come into it. You (as the State) set the [income tax rate] arbitrarily, and if they can't afford it they get [put out of business or made unemployed]."

Ian B said...

Mark, we're discussing land for which neither rent nor mortgage is being paid. The issue is why you demand that the State extract a rent from every square foot of land in the nation, in perpetuity.

Mark Wadsworth said...

IanB: "Mark, we're discussing land for which neither rent nor mortgage is being paid..."

Actually, I am trying to discuss all state-protected monopoly right (land, radio spectrum, airport landing slots, cherished number plates etc.)

"The issue is why you demand that the State extract a rent from every square foot of land in the nation, in perpetuity."

Why?
1. Land price and credit bubbles = bad.
2. Taxes on incomes and production = bad.
3. Things work better if people have exclusive possession of certain things (land, radio spectrum, airport landing slots, cherished number plates etc).
4. The only person who can guarantee that exclusive possession = 'the state'.
5. Those who are deprived of use of those things (land, radio spectrum etc) are being restricted in their freedoms by 'the state'.
6. Those who benefit from the restrictions ought to compensate those who are disadvantaged by the restrictions, via the tax/redistribution system.
7. Such taxes do not have deadweight costs on the economy, and indeed, tend to encourage more efficient use of the assets available.

As ever, I invite you most cordially to justify taxing incomes and production; or indeed to explain which taxes you would choose to pay (if any) under the voluntary tax system outlined in this post.

I think I have so far gone to a lot of trouble to explain why I have come to the conclusion I have; you have so far not answered the equal and opposite questions which I have asked you.

TheFatBigot said...

How does the State assess the value of land for these purposes?

Does the person on the outskirts of London pay twice as much LVT as the person in an identical house in Newcastle, or is it based on something other than what people are actually prepared to pay for the land in question?

Mark Wadsworth said...

TFB: "How does the State assess the value of land for these purposes?"

There is no science to it whatsoever. There is no magic formula any more than the landlord of a house or flat to rent has a formula.

In my voluntary-tax-scenario, the land tax is constantly adjusted up or down in each local ward or postcode sector so that selling prices of buildings:
a) Are approx. equal to their construction costs
b) Are similar for similar buildings across the country.

So I can tell you that the tax on the house on the outskirts of London would probably be £9,000 more than the house in Newcastle, but I can't tell you what the tax on the house in Newcastle would be.

Lola said...

Sort of related to this but I am not sure that the whole population is as home-oner-ist as one might think. The 'get on the housing ladder' business is usually said by parents to their children, not on the basis that a a house 'is a good investment' but because they are always going up 'you'd better buy before they are too expensive, and anyway renting is a "waste of money". In a sense then people already realise that houses are going up too much. Trouble is the meeja and the vested interests, mainly government and fractional reserve banking, are desperate for this madness to continue and propogate the myth and encourage the inflation. Goverment also, as a monopoly supplier of eductaion, deliberately avoids teaching credible economics courses that might equip people to realise that they arebeing conned.

In short then I think that the UK, well, England really, is readier than we might think for some common sense on home-owner-ism and if Georgist LVT is the answer I reckon they (we'd?) go for it.

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, I suspect that they are far more Home-Owner-Ist that you or I can fathom - see for example most of the comments on the threads I do railing against it. But ta for moral support anyway.

Lola said...

MW - For quite some years I have been doing a straw poll with clients buying houses and wanting to get into debt to do so. Many really do understand the madness and want house prices lower, or even stable vis a vis money inflation, and those that I know well I have discussed taxation and the gneral dynamics of the house market and they would like 'something done about it'. Maybe there is a lrge degree of self selection in those that I ahve polled, but I what I do know is that a rational and informed discussion would be welcomed by many.

But how, just how the bloody Hell, do you get clowns like the BBc to do this?

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, I doubt the BBC would do this. They are part of the Home-Owner-Ist coalition.

For example, Natasha Kaplinski did a one-week series on house prices generally last year, and to my pleasant surprise, up popped Toby Lloyd, land value taxer of this parish, and he got about fifteen seconds into his standard speech (house price bubbles are bad for us, taxes on income and production are bad for us etc.) and they just shut him up.

Lola said...

Yeah, but NK is a seriously hot bint, so I never listen to a word she says, just spend my time phantasing - or is that too much info?

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, yes. Can't say I disagree though.