The Homeys claim that developers and builders would be "hit" with LVT and either
go out of business or "pass on the tax" to purchasers.
Putting fancy economics to one side for a moment, the most important point here
is that actual developers/builders would pay a lot less in LVT than they
currently do in land- or planning-related taxes!
Here's an overview of all the taxes which are currently triggered by
development:
Landowner – sells land, foregoes agricultural land subsidies on the area sold
and pays Capital Gains Tax or corporation tax on the unearned capital gain.
Developer – buys land and pays Stamp Duty Land Tax
Developer – pays planning fees, Community Infrastructure Levy, s106
contributions and incurs costs of planning obligations.
Developer – claims VAT refunds as new housing is zero-rated for VAT, a kind of
subsidy.
Developer – sells some “affordable housing” units at a low profit margin to a
Registered Provider such as a Housing Association. This can be seen as a tax of
nearly 100% on that fraction of the potential development profit.
Developer - sells the rest to owner-occupiers and private investors for a
profit. The developer’s profit has two elements – the unearned increase in the
value of the land since it was first acquired and the earned element (return for
risk and effort) - and the total profit is subject to normal corporation tax.
Owner-occupiers and private investors – pay Stamp Duty Land Tax when they buy
the finished homes.
All these land- and planning-related charges fees and taxes could and should be
scrapped and rolled into LVT as part of the initial shift. The average total
bill (less VAT rebates) is tens of thousands of pounds per new home (depending
on where in the country it is). Even if LVT became payable as soon as planning
is granted, the average would be about £7,000 per home per year. It seems
sensible to give developers/builders an exemption for the first year or two
after planning is granted, so developers/builders might end paying nothing at
all.
As to "passing on the tax", in the next breath the Homeys will also claim that
LVT will see house prices plummet (if they haven't already claimed that in the
previous breath), which is tacit admittance that LVT cannot be passed on. The
developer does pass it on, of course, the burden is passed up the chain to the
original landowner or landbanker
The KLNs are also equal and opposite to the KLN that farmers won't be able to
afford to pay LVT and will be forced to sell all their fields to developers. So
a complete and utter mess and an epic fail, as per usual.
Friday, 4 September 2020
Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (483)
My latest blogpost: Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (483)Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 15:07
Labels: KLN
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Much of what the developer pays is an attempt to claw back some of the unearned capital gain arising from lifting the restrictions on the land's use. In the private sector, the cost of lifting such a restrictive covenant is usually close to that capital gain, so there is no reason why that should not be the case where the restrictive covenant is set by the state. It is entirely by state decree that agricultural land is made artificially cheap, therefore the state should be the beneficiary when that land is sold for its true value.
B, I look at it the other way round. Society is giving farmland with no planning relatively little value (CAP aside) apart from guaranteeing ownership.
Once planning restrictions are lifted, society is showering the land with value. That value belongs to society (not 'the state'). And an annual tax is far more efficient than random taxes as random events (grant of planning, sales and purchases, inheritance etc).
Agreed, my argument was in the case of a non-LVT world.
"The Homeys claim that developers and builders would be "hit" with LVT and either go out of business or "pass on the tax" to purchasers."
This is not true for another reason, which is that the costs of development are borne by the landowner. Nothing is "passed on" to the purchaser. The value of the houses is always the maximum that the market will buy. That is the starting point, from which all costs and profit are deducted to leave the purchase price of the land.
B, agreed. See last sentence of my penultimate paragraph.
The CIL is a strange program. A capital payment is made upfront, but then the maintenance of the capital assets gets dumped on the taxpayer. Of course some of these are borne by owners indirectly via council tax but the biggest beneficiaries don't pay more than the council tax cap.
M, exactly.
Post a Comment