Property Outlook : Global and Local
We need a more efficient and equitable tax system compatible with economic growth and productivity. In our mobile society it seems reasonable, a priori, to move taxation from relatively mobile bases like income and profits to relatively immobile bases like land, rent and consumption. Such a switch rewards the enterprising. A land tax could be a necessary part of a better system.
My space limitation means that the argument will lack convincing data, and I have had to excise counter-arguments. I also recognize that its implementation would be fraught with difficulty. My purpose is to sketch an idea at a time when Government is reviewing tax.
I saw the merits of the tax while working in Hong Kong and seeing the benefit of free-trade, a small state and low taxation. I taught Japanese economic history and became convinced that Japan modern economic growth was founded on a vibrant agriculture and a land tax.
Ideologically I respected increasingly the nineteenth century liberal ideology of Mill, Ricardo, Bentham, Cobden, Bright, Smith, and Macaulay. They seem timeless. I give typical quote from Macaulay. about “pests to society”....a prying, meddlesome government which intrudes itself into every part of human life, and which thinks it can do everything better than anyone can do for himself” or J. S. Mill warning against “ the great evil of adding unnecessarily to the power of the state”.
Mill insisted on a land tax because “the land of every country belongs to the people of that country”. Ideally the state would own all land and lease it out, getting the unearned component of price rises. Hong Kong adopted Mills’ recommendation.
Henry George also advocated a land tax in “Progress and Poverty”, 1879. George noticed in California that poverty increased as land prices increased. He advocated a tax on land value but not on improvements as that would destroy the natural right to the fruit of labour, and “act as the spoliation of industry and thrift”.
The tax suggested is a land value tax (LVT). it taxes all land, urban and rural (except parks and reserves). It does not tax improvements.
Revenue
LVT is an excellent source of government revenue. It can raise substantial sums without damaging the economy. Hong Kong raises about 38% of its revenue from a land tax. It is usually in surplus, and imposes very low taxes in other areas. When I lived there, the threshold on income tax was very high and the maximum was about 12% (by memory). Singapore and Taiwan also operate land taxes.
It broadens the tax base and produces very predictable returns in contrast to more volatile taxes made on profits. The supply of land is very inelastic, and its value does not fluctuate greatly if the speculative is easy to collect. The authorities need only registers of owners and a valuation of the land. It is hard to evade, because land cannot be hidden , nor transferred into tax havens abroad. The cost of collecting some taxes is very high, but a land tax is a low cost tax. Because LVT is cheap to impose and a reliable revenue raiser, it can reduce the need for other taxes. A LVT mitigates the case for a capital gains tax element is removed.
• A land tax reduces speculation because it imposes a holding cost. This should have the effect of returning land to productive use. Wikipedia suggests it reduces urban sprawl because it reduces the number of vacant lots in a city. An example is Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which has used a land tax since 1975.
• deters bubbles. The existing structure in New Zealand encourages speculation. Land gets bid up to levels which predicate very low yields. The boom and bust scenario is very damaging to the economy. A land tax is a factor for stability.
• is easy to collect. The authorities need only registers of owners and a valuation of the land. It is hard to evade, because land cannot be hidden , nor transfered into tax havens abroad. The costs of collecting some taxes is very high, but a land tax is a low cost tax.
• is so cheap to impose, so reliable in producing the goods, that it can reduce the need for other taxes.
• diverts investment from unproductive property activities. These are directed in large part to making capital gains or rent. “Rent seeking” is disapproved of by economists because it extracts uncompensated value from others without making contributions to productivity.
Rent is not payment for a lease, in this example, but derives from Adam Smith’s division of income into wages, profit and rent.
• would lower the price of land. An ideal rate forces land to be used productively, and profitably. This will lead to a lower value because the speculative component of the land’s value is removed. The speculators would reduce their land holdings and land would be used only for economic activities
• Cheaper land would allow more able farmers to enter the industry. (more later)
• lower land values should exert downward pressure on urban rents. If tenants are already paying a high proportion of their disposable income on rent, a low rent would, others things being equal, have the effect of increasing their net wages. Higher wages could stimulate both higher saving and consumption.
• improves the equity in a taxation system. Some people like children, students and beneficiaries generally have little wealth and land. A land tax would affect only the better off in those categories.
• encourages investment and productivity. At present a land owner is taxed only on income (less expenses) arising from land. There is no particular incentive to use land productively. Land- owners, including life-stylers, can merely lightly stock their land and wait for capital gains. Capital gains in the South Island, 1990-2007 averaged 17% a year (NBR May1).
• induces efficient sized units. New Zealand’s farmers often hold more land than they need for production. A surplus is attractive because increased size increases capital gain. A land tax encourages greater intensity of farming, with more labour and capital per unit. It frees up land for new entrants.
• Encourages improvements in order the maximize returns.
Conclusion: It is inefficient and inequitable to avoid taxing land. Land taxes are avoided, however, by political systems which have a large landed interest. In the UK it was sought by the liberal party, with powerful advocates like Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, but would never have passed through the self-interested House of Lords.
A New Monthly Report by Dr Neville Bennett
An incisive hard-nosed monthly view of markets, personally prepared for select subscribers by Dr Neville Bennett (London School of Economics).
Economics Editor of the National Business Review, Director of Socrates Fund Management, Director of the Foundation of the Blind, Trustee of the Universities Superannuation Scheme and Consultant to Breaker Bay group.
Available Exclusive by Subcription Monthly from May 2009
An exclusive window into the future from the same economist that brought you the Aviation Index and other unique insights into the workings of the world economy.
Here is what Dr Bennett has said in the past in the NBR –
“The yield curve is rather flat and appears to be flattening ...Every recession has been preceded by a flat curve. There is a massive credit crunch taking place.” JUNE 2, 2006
“The market seizes the good news and runs with it. Sometimes there is somewhat negative news but that is overlooked. (The Dow) now surges every day. So did the Nikkei ... it rose to 28,000 in early 1998. It was convinced it was inspired by infinite expansion ... there is a disconnect between the finance and real world ... I have looked up other bubbles and it always ends in tears.” MAY11, 2007.
With the benefit of hindsight we can now see just how accurate Neville's analysis was back in 2006 / 2007. This report gives you specific in depth insight into the thinking that has produced these columns in the past.
The monthly report is available by subscription only.
For a complimentary copy of The Bennett Report go to –
www.bennetteconomics.com
and click on the complimentary copy panel
This report will be exclusive and only available to subscribers. Think of it as a personal report to you by a highly regarded academic, economist and commentator. Distribution will tightly controlled.
The full subscription price for a monthly report will be $80, if you subscribe for a year (12 reports) the cost will be $50 per month.
To subscribe please send your name, address and phone number with a cheque to Cowrie Corp Ltd, PO Box , Riccarton, Christchurch 8440
Alternatively you can subscribe online at www.bennetteconomics.com
|