Wednesday 12 September 2012

From a Christian non-conformist think-tank...

Since the economic crisis, people have become increasingly aware of the unfairness of our current tax system. Tax avoidance by corporations and the super-rich gives the appearance that paying tax is an optional extra, whilst low-paid workers have no choice in the matter.

There’s a subsequent desire to come up with forms of tax that are fair, asking most from those who have most, providing the resources needed to fund decent public services. Church Action on Poverty is currently bringing the debate to towns and cities up and down the country through its Tax Justice tour.

For Christians, and all people of faith, there could hardly be a fairer tax than a land tax. If we believe that the earth was created for everybody to share equally, it is hard to justify a small elite benefiting exclusively from large parts of it.

In the UK, land ownership is more heavily concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few than it is in many developing countries. 69 per cent of Britain’s land is owned by less than one per cent of the population. Much of that 69 per cent is in the hands of the aristocracy, which means the current owners have inherited it: ownership is not a result of their own endeavours.

(c) Bernadette Meaden has written about religious, political and social issues for some years, and is strongly influenced by Christian Socialism, liberation theology and the Catholic Worker movement. She is a regular contributor to Ekklesia.

24 comments:

Lola said...

Give the man a coconut!

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, I assume that Bernadette is a woman, actually.

Lola said...

Er, yes. Oops.

Kj said...

In the UK, land ownership is more heavily concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few than it is in many developing countries. 69 per cent of Britain’s land is owned by less than one per cent of the population. Much of that 69 per cent is in the hands of the aristocracy, which means the current owners have inherited it: ownership is not a result of their own endeavours.

I'm sure that's true, but it's more interesting to know the concentration of land-value, most of britain is fields and some moors...
Bless them, but it's interesting too see the slight differences in rhetoric between people with an economic bent and the "how to tax the rich"-folks...

Mark Wadsworth said...

Kj, yes of course, this idea that 1% own 69% of the land is irrelevant. They only own 69% by area, not by value.

Nobody knows how much by value the top 1% own, it's probably more like 10% than 69%.

But we know for a fact that

- 30% (tenants) own no land at all, and
- half of 70% homeowners, i.e. the 35% with mortgages own about £1 billion (after you deduct their mortgages) which is about 20% of all land by value.
- the other half of homeowners without mortgages own £2,500 billion's worth of land (or about 40% of all land by value)

Mortgages are about 30% of land by value (controlled by the banks, this leaves 10% owned by the landed aristocracy and so on.

Sarton Bander said...

In an economy that's almost exclusively based on food production, a tithe and an LVT are synonyms.

Mark Wadsworth said...

SB, agreed.

DBC Reed said...

@SB & MW
Quite by chance came across these quotes on Wikipedia :
History of Taxation in the United Kingdom
".....In 1692 Parliament introduced a national land tax.This tax was based on rental values and applied both to rural and urban land.No provision was made for re-assessing the 1692 valuations and these remained in force well into the 18th century."

And under a slightly different heading ,a different entry>
Taxation in the United Kingdom
" A uniform Land Tax was introduced in England during the late 17th century.This formed the main source of government income throughout the 17th century,the 17th century and in the early 19th century."
Some thoughts: it made more sense in the 17th century to talk about rental values for land when land was to be had for rent.(Nowadays you talk of rental values for LVT and people don't get what you're on about);
it goes to prove that, far from revolutionary, land tax is quite ancient and a move in its direction truly conservative.

Mark Wadsworth said...

DBC, correct, in fact we can date back national land rates to 1601 (called 'Poor rates' as they were expressly levied to pay basic welfare to the dispossessed. Hence the term 'Good Queen Bess').

Derek said...

If you check the history tab in Wikipedia I think you'll you'll find that I wrote those bits. Before I did there was hardly anything about land tax in the UK. Mind you there's lots more to be said. Both those articles could do with expansion in mediaeval and early modern times, so if any one else wants to do a bit of internet research and then write up the results in WP, please feel free. One of my goals in Wikipedia is to work on land taxation topics, so that people are aware of how important they have been and could be. Any help, gratefully accepted.

Kj said...

Derek: Good work. I'm trying to research these things with regards to Scandinavia. Landholder-related duties has been important in some way another since the 11th centuries, where landowners needed to provide for x amount of poor, give x amount to the king's household according to the value of their tenancies. And in the 19th, ground-rent taxes were dominant revenue sources in the towns.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Derek, good work, keep it up.

DBC Reed said...

@D And here was I thinking 'This Wikipedia entry seems to confirm what Derek was saying on MW's blog." It only goes to show...
BTW perhaps you could put a Homeownerism entry up on Wikipedia( bearing in mind that I invented the term on House Price Crash only for MW to elaborate the idea over about 12,000 entries on his blog.....I would settle for joint billing....Me first....On second thoughts,perhaps this whole Homeownerism on Wikipedia thing is not such a good idea after all).

Derek said...

@DBC, if it's any comfort, I didn't just make the dates and stuff up. I did a bit of searching around the Internet to find out what other people had written on the topic first. So there's a fair chance that what I wrote is actually correct!

Mind you it's amazing what can happen. Back in 2009 I was one of the Dragoons in a production of Gilbert and Sullivan's show, Patience, and so I did a bit of research on that for Wikipedia. I found that it didn't have anything on a Victorian private investigator, Ignatius "Paddington" Pollaky, who gets a brief mention in the show so I thought I'd add something because he was interesting. In many ways a real-life Sherlock Holmes. However when I googled him there was next to nothing available. But not quite nothing. It took a fair bit of detective work but eventually I got enough together to give a brief but decent article for Wikipedia.

Fast forward to 2012 and you'll find that if you google Mr Pollaky now there are articles about him all over the place. However nearly all of them are either based on the Wikipedia article or they're direct copies of it. So it's just as difficult to find something new to add to the Wiki article as it ever was. In fact it's worse because now you have to wade through all the derivative stuff.

That's why you have to be careful what you add to Wikipedia. People will quote it and use it elsewhere, so it's really important to make sure of your facts before adding them. But looking on the bright side it's a great of getting the facts out about anything -- including LVT

Derek said...

@Kj,

Absolutely. I know there's a great story about land taxes in Scandinavia, particularly Denmark and I think WP may have a little about it already. But if you can find out more and write it up there it would be really great.

There are rules about content on Wikipedia and you have to be careful about following them if you want your work to "stick". A lot of people don't realise this and then get upset when their work gets deleted or re-written. But you just have to realise that in 90% of cases it's nothing personal. As long as you're not the sort of person who can start an argument with people who agree with him (and we all know a few land taxers who fall into that category) you should do okay.

Mark Wadsworth said...

D, nobody disagrees with Kj, not even me. Because he's always right.

DBC Reed said...

@D I was n't implying for one minute that you made things up.I was just saying that its
very strange reading something from a private source on a blog and then seeing almost the same wording on a public,authoritative source like Wikipedia. It occurred to me that you might have consulted Wikipedia ,not that you had written the relevant bit.Great stuff.

Derek said...

@MW, Ah, I can see that you haven't read the Yahoo Land Cafe forum recently! Kj is indeed always right but that hasn't stopped him (and DBCR) from taking lumps.

Kj said...

Derek: lumps? petty disagreements that's all, I usually get what I deserve when butting in ;)

DBC Reed said...

@D
Taking lumps?I have been doing rather well seeing off the resident madman on landcafe,who has been silenced in his attempt to pin the blame for Detroit's plight on the Unions.And now his alliance with the philosopher who dicusses why frisbees change colour at night has burst apart over his plan to give children LVT exemption allowances.
Between you and me, someone has complained about the ongoing goings-on on Landcafe and some kind of Stewards Enquiry has been taking place.But I don't expect anything will change much.So it will be non-stop UIE for ever (UIE= Uterine Insemination Embargo)

Derek said...

@Kj, @DBCR, well, gentlemen, I take my hat off to you both in any case. You are made of sterner stuff than I am.

Good news about the Stewards Enquiry though. I hope that it does make changes, although as you say, it probably won't.

Mark Wadsworth said...

D, no I do not visit Land Cafe Forum, or Fora generally. They tend to get a bit dull. I prefer blogs, for some reason you get a better debate going - and the occasional Homey or Faux Lib dropping in to disagree with me/us.

DBC Reed said...

Things are a bit quiet on the land cafe front at the moment.Has something happened? Might be the time for the Europeans to move in and annexe it in the name of the One True Land Tax (strictly no exemptions for anybody but Poor Widows ).
The Americans have no idea about high land values citing examples of land under houses worth
$40k .Are they kidding.?They also think everywhere has local tax jurisdictions where ours is national and needs political party intervention.

Kj said...

DBC: the difference is that they *do* have local tax jurisdiction, most of Europe don't, so it's perfectly natural that Americans will focus on changes in local tax jurisdictions first. There are examples of this actually being fruitful, and that's a good thing. While us euro-folks will have to work with the state to make any such changes happen, a wholly different task. So the US: lots of opportunities for incremental improvements in the tax-system, Europe; possibly easier of doing countrywide changes than in the US, but a much higher treshold to actually make those changes. Did that sound right?