Chancellors are wont to use marginal tax rates both to fund
public services and national debt repayments and to appeal to voters according
to their political priorities. Their changes are then reversed by their
successor. This rather fruitless game leaves the poorest majority in society as
the pawns in a game, always far more affected by changes than those whose
wealth insulates them from the impact of such moves.
As Labour seeks to come to power to refocus policy on people
rather than just GDP, it will be constrained both by a commitment to debt
reduction and the accusation of being a “tax and spend” party, but it will need
to fund its priority programmes. Higher VAT is surely inconceivable, because it
hits the pockets of the poorest most. This leaves Income Tax and NIC rises as
options, perpetuating the visible ping-pong but changing nothing structurally.
There is surely a case for reconsideration of what should be
taxed. Currently, taxes are principally levied on work [Income Tax; NIC] and
expenditure [VAT], the two activities essential both for the economy of the
country and for that of individuals. This seems counter-intuitive.
Could it make more sense to treat taxation as a form of
payment for use of the principal asset of the country, its land? This is
finite. It has come to be “owned” but is in reality an immutable, physical
entity and part of the heritage of the whole population. “Ownership” is really
temporary, exclusive tenure of land by those fortunate enough, but who have
done nothing to create it and often nothing to increase its value, though its
use enables economic activities. Depending on the profitability of these
activities, the apparent value of the land grows but without those carrying out
the activity necessarily contributing anything for the privilege of its use. On
occasion, value rises despite lack of use.
Taxing land value [Land Value Tax] could become an effective
and fair source of revenue. Local Authorities or a national land-bank could
readily determine permitted use for any parcel, ascribe a value to that use and
tax accordingly. This enables those who would profit from using the land – through
letting in fracking, for example - to recompense the State or community for
allowing them sole rights to do their activities on it. The higher the demand
and the more valuable the activity, the more can local services be funded and
the fairer the overall tax system can become. Unused land with a defined value
could more readily be purchased compulsorily for the good of the community
rather than being blocked for asset inflation; whilst primary residences could
be exempted.
Taxing land value annually [in effect a Ground Rent to
society for tenure] would enable a concomitant reduction in the regressive
taxes on individuals’ efforts, enabling more people to keep or spend more of
their earnings, satisfying agendas of both left and right whilst recognising
differences in local economic needs. Wholesale adoption of such a scheme would seem
a high risk without testing its efficacy and de-bugging it on a local scale.
Maintaining universal democratic engagement of tax-payers would be essential
but Labour’s new focus on rebuilding local governance may offer the perfect
opportunity for theories and new tax models such as Land Value Tax to be
piloted, perhaps especially in rural areas with needs for infrastructure investments . of the kind accessible to urban environments.
Tom Serpell
No comments:
Post a Comment