Andy Burnham has mentioned land value tax as a specific policy. He is clearly thinking beyond Mansion Tax which is already planned for 2028 but only applies to dwellings valued £2m value and above.
This blog supports the idea of a land value tax on the value of all land and for a land tax on residential land it should be allowable against personal income tax paid. This will ease the transition of the reform as it will take into account the ability of the owner to pay and for most will not be an extra tax burden. Those unable to pay due to low income should be able to defer some of the tax until a sale.
Fred Harrison the UK's leading advocate of land value tax has just released a YouTube video: Why Andy Burnham Will Fail: Fred Harrison on Britain's Last Chance on which he says that Burnham's idea of spreading prosperity from London and the south-east will not work unless money goes out from London. Land value taxation of itself will not achieve regional prosperity. Harrison explains that Ricardo showed that the spare wealth of a country after the basic costs of survival gravitates towards the centre of highest productivity and finds its way into land values (also known as economic rent). For the UK, London and the south-east is where it mostly ends up. Fairness dictates that London's wealth should be spread out.
A very comprehensive way of achieving this is to start issuing universal basic income (UBI) to every person in the UK using the tax from the land value as a way of redirecting land wealth. This would channel the land wealth gains direct to individuals and households who would then have the choice of spending it, rather than a council or a quango having that choice. The poor who rent would be quick gainers with new income but without land value tax to pay. Regionally local businesses activity and investment would pick up and the prosperity of the regions would grow. The UBI would be the same for all and without means testing and its value would be greater away from London as costs and prices are often lower there. Because UBI would be guaranteed into the future it would encourage people to spend and this would raise economic activity.
Annie Miller in A Basic Income Pocketbook shows that it is likely that costs of the new UBI measure would exceed current welfare costs so higher taxes on the wealthier would be needed. This would come from the higher value of the land their larger and better located houses are built on.
Increasingly taxing land and not buildings would mean that other taxes could be reduced. Land values are a product of the whole community's success and it is equitable to share that gain for the common good. Taxes on work and on goods are a disincentive to work and produce and they should be reduced.
Posted by Charles Bazlinton. Author: The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom

No comments:
Post a Comment