Tuesday 13 September 2011

Sir Simon Jenkins comes over to The Dark Side

Writing in the Guardian, the chairman of the National Trust on the topic of the 50p tax rate:

Let's find progressive ways to tax the winners in our trickle-up economy... there are other ways of taxing the rich that have specific social benefits. The obvious candidate is the one tax that has been in steady decline over the past quarter century, and that is on property. This fiscal Cinderella, once called rates and now council tax, has been hated by chancellors down the ages, largely because it is not collected and controlled by them.

The decline of local property taxes from 12% of total revenue in the 1980s to under 5% today – largely replaced by VAT – has been so stark that some councils, such as Westminster, now get more revenue from the owners of cars (in parking and in fines) than they get from buildings.

The banded council tax has degenerated to being almost the poll tax that it replaced, since there is only a one-to-three ratio between band A and band H. The top band is all houses that were valued at above £320,000 in 1991. Sheer political cowardice has prevented either revaluation or the introduction of higher bands (other than in gutsy Wales).

The Liberal Democrat Vince Cable made a stab at reinvigorating property as a revenue source two years ago, with his ham-fisted "mansion tax" of 1% on houses worth over £2m. He was shot down on all sides. It would have been far simpler, and more honest, just to revive the old rates, perhaps by increasing the number of council tax bands to reflect a wider spread of house values, and with automatic revaluation. Every year council tax gets more regressive, and the rich get away with fiscal murder.

Throughout Europe and America property and local business taxes form part of the revenue mix. In smart New England they can be as high as $20,000 a year. They tax wealth modestly and they tax the nation's scarcest resource, living space. As such they are an incentive to the fairer allocation of housing in both public and private sectors.

Property taxes cannot be evaded, and properly imposed are a fair generator of government revenue. Better, they are traditionally paid in anger. Any tax paid in anger is a good tax – the opposite of a stealth tax, because the payer demands to know how it is spent. Property taxes are thus a spur to democratic interest and activity. That, of course, is why politicians detest them.

23 comments:

Ian B said...

Not directly germaine to the issue, but personally I think the Council Tax is one of the most iniquitous taxes ever invented.

Deniro said...

LVT does not fit in with the Anglo Saxon / British will to live in a free market/libitarian/conservative system (most people like to beleive this is a "capatilist" state in that sense) At the heart of LVT is the concept that Land belongs to the community, and thus has a socialist bent to it. Whereas property owning culture allows people to be deluded into thinking that the current system is not allready a democratically socialist one.

AS Jenkins says

"Property taxes are thus a spur to democratic interest and activity. That, of course, is why politicians detest them"

Bayard said...

"At the heart of LVT is the concept that Land belongs to the community"

What makes you think that? AFAICS, at the heart of LVT is the knowledge that it is a progressive tax that has no deadweight costs on a tax base that is very difficult to hide, impossible to evade and cannot be taken offshore.

In any case, the idea that all land belongs to the state (NOT the community (however you define that wooly concept)) is a very ancient one, predating the Norman conquest and is about as English as they come.

QP said...

"At the heart of LVT is the concept that Land belongs to the community"

"at the heart of LVT is the knowledge that it is a progressive tax that has no deadweight costs on a tax base that is very difficult to hide, impossible to evade and cannot be taken offshore."

At the heart of LVT are both! The community/state issue is simply a question of scale and at what level you collect and redistribute. All states were born out of communities.

At least Jenkins concedes that if we are not going to do any more land development then we must at least pay fairly for what we currently use.

Anonymous said...

>At the heart of LVT is the concept that Land belongs to the community, and thus has a socialist bent to it.

Eh? Ricardo and Adam Smith are marxists?

AC1

Mark Wadsworth said...

ian B, explain?

Den, I have to disagree there.

Commonhold land is an ancient Anglo-Saxon thing - the 'community' owns the land collectively and everybody gets to farm or graze cattle on his share until he dies or gets too feeble. In such a society, everybody 'owns' a share of land as a birth right and it can't be bought or sold. The idea of one individual owning a freehold and being able to charge rent or execute poachers was introduced by the bloody foreigners, i.e. the Normans.

See also what B and QP say.

AC1, IanB is adamant that Smith and Ricardo were closet-Communists and haters of individual freedom. It's a widely held misconception among the Faux-Lib community.

Anonymous said...

"Faux Lib community", would that be the Fascist or Communist Community?
History proves that both turned their hands to HOME theft.
LVT turns the present owners of their HOMES, into registered keepers of their HOMES, whereby default in paying the LVT, for what ever reason, results in the state confiscating the HOME. It's already being done with cars, you only have to look at what used to be called the "OWNERS Log Book" and now titled "THE REGISTERED KEEPERS DOCUMENT". Nowhere does it admit that you are the legal owner of your car.
Wake up and expose these Communist HOME thieves

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon, can you do us all a favour and set up a Google account or use an identifiable pseudonym when you post here?

I suspect that your are the same person who resolutely refuses to accept that you and your Home-Owner-Ist buddies are engaged in a Socialist planning/rationing system to drive up rents and prices and who will merrily impose a Socialist tax system whereby you confiscate half of people's incomes in PAYE and VAT to make it even harder for them to afford current rents and prices, but I can't be sure.

Derek said...

That would be both: the Fascist libertarians and the Communist libertarians.

And you don't know the half of it. You are ALREADY the registered keeper of your HOME. The Queen is the real OWNER. That's what freehold means. You just get to keep it as long as you pay your taxes. Not just LVT. All your taxes.

Default in paying the Income Tax and you'll find the state confiscating the HOME pretty quick too. What's more they'll auction it off and if it still doesn't raise enough money they'll send you to PRISON.

And they do the same if you don't pay the VAT. Or the CGT. Or the Council Tax. Or any other tax.

So worry about the Communist HOME thieves if you want but don't forget the Conservative HOME thieves. And the Labour HOME thieves. And the Libertarian HOME thieves.

Because it doesn't matter which of them you elect: if you don't pay what you owe in tax, you will lose your HOME.

Deniro said...

Mark, I was using the term Anglo Saxon in the way the French say Anglo Saxon Capitalism, and a lot of your posts are about the poularity of individual property ownership in the UK/Britain.

Ian B said...

Mark, I don't think I've ever said Smith and Ricardo were "closet communists". What I have said is that they were lousy economists in many respects, and that the continued reverence for them, particularly Smith, is baffling[1], and that Marxist economic theory is derived from and dependent on the gross errors made by Smith and Ricardo as to the origin of value-- as also is Georgist economic theory.


[1] Smith is sort of the Bob Dylan of economics.

Anonymous said...

Mark - Why do you have to know who I am?, there are millions in the same position as myself.
Derek
You forgot the Faux bit but never mind attention to detail is not your strong suit.
You say that If I dont' pay my income tax, VAT etc my HOME will be confiscated and auctioned off, If I'm not paying THOSE taxes I must be dead.
Income tax is deducted from earnings, no earnings - no income tax. VAT is collected via an invoice - no invoices no VAT, regarding Council tax, should I fall upon hard times I can get the council to reduce or waive the tax completely.
LVT is directly linked to my HOME
so I must find the resources to meet LVT from existing funds when those funds run out the LVT still has to be paid, if I can't pay, the state steals the home.
To me that's theft.
FAUX Libs are fascist or communist - pretending to be libertarians.

Snarfangel said...

Mark - Why do you have to know who I am?, there are millions in the same position as myself.

Anon, my name isn't really Snarfangel (nor Mark, for that matter, so I'm not speaking for him), but it is kind of handy knowing if you've already made a particular argument to someone. With a dozen anonymouses (anonymii?), you never know if you are just repeating yourself. I don't think Mark is demanding a real name, just asking for a unique one.

BTW, I would say geolibertarians are just as "real" as royal libertarians, and are definitely more fervent capitalists. In fact, I would say that it seems odd to throw around the "fascist" or "communist" label when one is more willing to accept taxes on labor, capital, and trade -- products of ones brains and effort -- than on land.

Mark Wadsworth said...

IanB, well you can say "in many respects" as much as you like but "in many respects" they were completely and utterly correct. I've absolutely no interest in Marx, and as I keep pointing out, Home-Owner-Ism has a lot in common with Socialism anyway.

You tend to go on about "value theory" (not clear to me why) but where land is concerned, the matter is settled, even the most rabid Homey agrees that land values come from "Location. location. location" or as the LVTers express it "are created by the community".

Anon, I'd like you to use a pseudonym so that I can just ignore your comments in future.

But just for fun, allow me to point out that you are the Socialist here, you have just clearly stated that just if somebody has climbed the Party ladder/property ladder, that there is an obligation on the rest of society - including those who don't belong to the hallowed ranks of homeowners - to pay for you and to sustain you.

And I didn't describe you as a Faux Lib, that's the more intellectual wing of the Home-Owner-Ist movement, and your arguments are hardly intellectual, are they? I'd classify you as yer basic Home-Owner-Ist.

Snarf, the Homeys have been running a fantastic propaganda campaign since 1066. Describing people like us as "Commies", "Fascists", "Nazis" or "paedophiles" is part of their day to day operations. It's not as bad as executing trespassers, I suppose.

Anonymous said...

"At the heart of LVT is the concept that Land belongs to the community"

From my perspective, LVT as the only moral order under to own private property. And I don't think land necessarily belongs to the community, titles and taxations of such, is mainly a dispute resolutions mechanism, creating just title to land. Accepting the dubious way most existing land titles came to be, I'd say bygones be bygones if LVT was in place. The one who is ready to pay, owns it. Everyone gets a share either trough gov. services or a dividend. Either that or pay the tax to the bank. I cecrtainly pay my LVT to the bank "in anger"...

KJ

Mark Wadsworth said...

KJ, I for one never made a statement as bald as "land belongs to the community", what I have repeatedly pointed out is that land values i.e. location value is generated by the community ('Location, location, location') therefore that owning land is the privatisation of publicly generated wealth (which strikes me as wrong).

Income tax is the socialisation of privately generated wealth (which strikes me as equally wrong). But there is a beautiful symmetry in taxing land values, as it is the public collection of publicly created values, problem solved.

Anonymous said...

...what I have repeatedly pointed out is that land values i.e. location value is generated by the community ('Location, location, location') therefore that owning land is the privatisation of publicly generated wealth (which strikes me as wrong)...

I agree ofcourse, and the latter issue is probably the bulk of land values today. I would also add that LVT also internalizes privately generated positive externalities. But I think LVT morally also pre-dates any publically og privately generated externalities, in mere scarcity and relations to non-man-made features. Misesians and the likes would argue that the absence of any public goods (gov provided that is) would remove most rents, but I argue there would still be a certain scarcity value to most land.

Bayard said...

"should I fall upon hard times I can get the council to reduce or waive the tax completely."...."so I must find the resources to meet LVT from existing funds when those funds run out the LVT still has to be paid, if I can't pay, the state steals the home."

Council Tax IS LVT (or a form of it). If the state can waive council tax for the destitute, it can waive LVT, duh.
Anyway, as Derek pointed out, the state can take your home any time it likes. It's called compulsory purchase. You don't own your home, you just have permission for exclusive occupation from the state.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon, the self-appointed Miseans completely miss the point about publicly provided goods. Houses near a station are worth more than houses fifteen minutes's walk away; a car park near a station generates as much income/sq yard as a house near a station etc.

Whether that railway is run by the government or a private operator; or how much of its income is state-subsidy rather than proper ticket sales is more or less irrelevant in determining rental value of surrounding land.

Whether the car park is privately owned or owned by the council is also irrelevant, it only has value because it is next to the station (a car park in the middle of nowhere would not be able to generate any income because nobody would want to park there).

B, it is true that with LVT there is the issue that it is a regular annual payment regardless of your cash income, unlike income tax which adjust up and down according to your current income.

But this is purely a timing/smoothing issue.

In the absence of any income-related reliefs, deferment options or Citizen's Income/personal land allowance (all of which would be built in to the system), people might fall back on that old remedy called "building up savings in the fat years to see yourself through the lean ones", which I believe is widely accepted as being A Good Thing (but perhaps the Homeys disagree).

Bayard said...

One of the most effective arguments for the anti-LVT lobby to employ is that with LVT, the spectre of eviction hangs over all of us (great poster image, btw). Lose your income, lose your home. The fact that this is already true for the majority of households is irrelevant. Mortgagors are generally already looking beyond the pay-off date and having the prospect of very small monthly outgoings is a great security.
Evictions are a great political no-no and always have been - look at the contemporary opposition to the great Irish and Scottish evictions of the C19th. Look at the lengths the banks go to avoid evicting people in arrears with their mortgage. It's no good saying "building up savings in the fat years to see yourself through the lean ones", an evicted family is an evicted family, regardless of how much they brought it on themselves.
AFAICS, it is much more important to have property as a tax base than make sure that LVT is implemented in some hardline way and that "the feckless and the scroungers get the come-uppance they richly deserve". It's also imprtant not to use the Citizen's Income argument against eviction, because, correct me if I'm wrong, but that depends on a huge cut in government spending, which we all know isn't going to happen any time soon. History is against us on this one.

Anonymous said...

My goodness, Mark. You are completely right and I've been a fool not to realise it.

Anonymous said...

Ian B,
re 'complete' theories of real economies.

So remind me again, and this is the second time I have asked you, how do we get a 'fair' insurance value on my house or your house, my old master your old master etc, although they are not for sale and have not left our families for 200 hundred years.

MikeW

C said...

Isn't a state just the territory that belongs to it? Everyone is paying LVT to someone, whether it's the state, the bank or the (commercial BTL investment company) landlord (who lives in the Middle East).

If you don't pay your LVT, then how about putting it this way. You've just created a new state which comprises your house, and you can charge yourself LVT or whatever taxes you like. However, since you have seceeded from "the UK" (let's just call it that for now), you're no longer entitled to live the UK, there are no obligations to let you travel into its territory, and it can send the army to reconquer your new state. If you want to defend yourself, go ahead. You can even join up with neighbours or something. If we get many smaller states on this island, it's actually not a bad thing.



Anyway, I'd rather have taxes go to the state than private companies, so it can be redistributed as CI and pay for things like defence. There is an argument that votes be allocated in proportion to LVT paid but that's probably a bit too radical.

I don't get why anyone would rather pay income tax than LVT. Why does HMRC believe it can tax my income from Australia just because I spent more than 91 days in the UK in the past 4 years? With LVT, I can rent a house (paying the LVT to the landlord) and have NO tax dealings with the state whatsoever. No need to keep records for 7 years, no withholding tax, no working out whether 65% of this expense is eligible for a 25% rebate and deduction... And as Mark has said, we could even use the PAYE system to demonstrate how most peopel would be better off under LVT (as long as they realise they can't afford to live in a huge house on 20K a year).