Tuesday, 31 August 2010

We own houses! Give us money!

From the BBC:

Big cash incentives should be offered to people living in areas of England where developers want to build new homes, a think tank suggests.

Instead of the current system where council planners decide whether to back new projects, the Policy Exchange says local residents should be balloted. It says such changes would lead to more young people being able to afford to buy their own homes instead of renting...


Wot?

I'm not aware that NIMBYs, who by definition nearly all own a house themselves, were forced to "compensate" owners of existing houses when theirs were built, so like all land 'ownership' this is yet more privatised tax collection - a regressive transfer of wealth from the younger generation and the construction industry (and owners of undeveloped land) to existing home owners.

Of course, with Land Value Tax, you get automatic compensation if new developments depress the rental value of existing buildings because your tax bill would go down, but this idea* is Land Value Tax turned on its head.

* Which is only one suggestion in the full report (pdf). Some of the ideas seem quite sensible, some are same old, same old. And the report makes the usual error of looking at the headline figure for Housing Benefit without realising that two-thirds of this is merely a transfer from one branch of government (the Department of Work & Pensions) to other branches of government (local authorities and Housing Associations) and does not net off the rents paid by social tenants (so the net cash cost to the taxpayer is negligible). It's the one-third of Housing Benefit paid to 'private' landlords, many of whom own ex-council housing which represents a real cost to the taxpayer.

14 comments:

Scott Wright said...

Why is the word land value tax invisible in your post?

Anonymous said...

At least the report correctly identifies rising house prices as a problem that makes us all poorer, rather than as a great thing that the government should support!

Of course, the new developments would normally increase the value of existing homes and land. So the owners of those homes would actually face an increased LVT bill, not a reduction.

So I don't think LVT addresses the problem of NIMBYs trying to stop houses being built on the fields next door.

Anonymous said...

"And the report makes the usual error of looking at the headline figure for Housing Benefit without realising that two-thirds of this is merely a transfer from one branch of government (the Department of Work & Pensions) to other branches of government (local authorities and Housing Associations) and does not net off the rents paid by social tenants (so the net cash cost to the taxpayer is negligible)."
So the houses paid for this could not have been rented/sold on the market for a real negative cost to the tax payer?

Surely the rent not received is a cost? (As well as the nice home a tax payer could have got).

Scott Wright said...

"adamcollyer said...

At least the report correctly identifies rising house prices as a problem that makes us all poorer, rather than as a great thing that the government should support!

Of course, the new developments would normally increase the value of existing homes and land. So the owners of those homes would actually face an increased LVT bill, not a reduction.

So I don't think LVT addresses the problem of NIMBYs trying to stop houses being built on the fields next door."

I would have thought that brand spanking new houses built next to shabby old sh*te would decrease the overall value of the shabby old sh*te in the area as people won't want to live in shabby old sh*te next to shiny brand spanking new houses. Of course areas of high residential occupancy will have greater commercial land values as there is a close, large customer base but residential land I would have thought decreases on the whole.

I think that Mark is also in favour of much more lax planning laws, a kind of as long as you pay the tax you can do what you want with your land within reasonable limits (the limits of current planning regulations being far from reasonable)

Anonymous said...

New housing developments usually bring with them improved services and facilities. And older houses are not normally seen as "sh*te". The current occupiers might not like new housing nearby, but it normally will drive up the value of their own houses.

That's why residential land is more expensive in towns/cities. (Apart from the planning laws which, as you say, artificially increase the value of housing and building land in the countryside.)

I'm in favour of laxer planning laws too by the way.

Tim Almond said...

Of course, the new developments would normally increase the value of existing homes and land. So the owners of those homes would actually face an increased LVT bill, not a reduction.

So I don't think LVT addresses the problem of NIMBYs trying to stop houses being built on the fields next door.


Where? All the evidence I've seen is that people in commuter villages/boho chic towns tend to man the pitchforks when someone talks about building, while the people on the outskirts of a modern town are less bothered about it.

Tim Almond said...

adamcollyer,

just to add... it's certainly true that some parts of the country would welcome development, the problem is that the areas where there's most demand for housing the most don't see it that way.

Anonymous said...

"The housing minister states that councils should give priority to local people but then goes on to say that they will have to give priority to the homeless,people with families and other needy groups, as most of these immigrants have large families and are homeless then nothing has changed. It is just another paper exercise" Daily Mail

Mark Wadsworth said...

SW, it's the tax that dare not mention its name.

AC, SW, new development might or might not increase rental value of existing buildings. But we know that Home-Owner-Ism brings out the worst in human nature - it is not enough to have a nice house; you have to prevent others from having a nice house as well.

Remember that there is trading down in absolute terms as well as relative terms - if we had LVT and NIMBYs allowed more housing to be built, the old residents would ultimately be paying a smaller tax share on a relatively smaller slice of the overall larger pie (or benefitting more from the extra tax that the new residents are paying).

Anon1, if you include the notional cost, you also have to include the notional income, as I explained here. The net notional cost is £nil and the net cash cost is £nil.

JT, in my experience, the vast majority are NIMBYs (out of spite or stupidity). Even my mate from the Green Party who lives in a block of flats (and who would benefit from new development) is a NIMBY.

Anon2, it's all so much blah blah.

Bayard said...

As I've said before, under the current system of "planning", "developers" (speculators really) get all the benefits in the form of windfall gains when the use class of land is changed and existing residents get all the liabilities in the form of loss of view, increased traffic, increased pressure on local services etc etc. It's a system designed to produce NIMBYs. Why shouldn't some of the windfall gains be transferred from the speculators to the local residents?

"- a regressive transfer of wealth from the younger generation and the construction industry (and owners of undeveloped land) to existing home owners."

I can't see how the construction industry is involved. Land speculators, yes, but not yer actual construction industry. Remember "developers" rarely do any building, builders do that. Developers most make their money out of getting planning permission.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, what's this nonsense about "increased pressure on local services"?

If it were true that where more houses were built were worse areas, then we'd expect land values in the most densely populated areas to be lowest, but they are not, they are highest.

The construction industry is two separate things - a property speculating division and a building division.

Bayard said...

Well, in a perfect world, increased pressure on local services would not be a bad thing, but under the current system, state provided services like health and education rarely expand readily to meet the demand.

An area where state provided services are good is a desirable area to live, but increase the population of that area and said services can easily become overloaded and their quality significantly decline, or the original inhabitants find their access restricted. If it was all private this wouldn't happen, of course, but it's not.

I wouldn't count property speculation as part of the construction industry.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B: "...If it were all private this wouldn't happen, of course, but it's not."

That't the other half of the MW manifesto, to replace as much as possible with vouchers etc.

Scott Wright said...

Anonymous #2

"The housing minister states that councils should give priority to local people but then goes on to say that they will have to give priority to the homeless,people with families and other needy groups, as most of these immigrants have large families and are homeless then nothing has changed. It is just another paper exercise" Daily Mail


Of course its all just a paper exercise, if a British person intentionally makes themselves homeless they go to the bottom of the queue. Somehow a migrant moving here without 2 pennies to rub together is NOT intentional hardship (i'm still trying to figure out exactly why......)