Land value tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public finance
This article is part of the series: Finance and Taxation
Taxation
Income tax  ·  Payroll tax CGT ·  Stamp duty  ·  LVT Sales tax  ·  VAT  ·  Flat tax Tax, tariff and trade Tax haven
Tax incidence
Tax rate  ·   Proportional tax Progressive tax  ·   Regressive tax Tax advantage
Taxation by country Australia • British Virgin Islands Canada • China • Colombia France • Germany • Hong Kong India • Indonesia • Ireland Netherlands • New Zealand Peru • Russia • Singapore Tanzania • United Kingdom United States • European Union  v • d • e  Tax rates around the world Tax revenue as % of GDP
Economic policy
Monetary policy Central bank  ·   Money supply Gold standard
Fiscal policy Spending  ·   Deficit  ·   Debt
Policy-mix
Trade policy Tariff  ·   Trade agreement
Finance
Financial market Financial market participants Corporate  ·   Personal Public  ·   Regulation
Banking
Fractional-reserve Full-reserve  ·   Free banking Islamic
view • talk • edit • project

Land value taxation (LVT) (or site value taxation) is a tax that charges landholders a portion of the unimproved value of a site or parcel of land.

The land value tax is an ad valorem tax where only the value of land itself is taxed. This ignores buildings, improvements, and personal property. Because of this, LVT is different from other property taxes which generally tend to fall on real estate - the combination of land and improvements to land.

Land value taxation is ancient, tracing back to early governments after the introduction of agriculture. One of the oldest forms of taxation, it was originally based on crop yield. This early version of the tax required simply sharing the yield at the time of the harvest, akin to paying a yearly rent.^[1] In modern times, every jurisdiction that has a real estate property tax has a land value tax, because part of the ad valorem basis for real estate is the locational or land value in addition to the improvement value.^[2]

Contents 1 Economic effects 1.1 High efficiency 1.2 Reduced speculation 1.3 Loss of asset value 2 Implementation 2.1 Simplicity and certainty 2.2 Sufficiency of revenue 2.3 Requires clear ownership 2.4 Government authority in the United States 3 Ethics 4 Advocates 4.1 Physiocrats 4.2 Henry George 4.3 British Liberal Party 4.4 Contemporary economists 5 Land value tax systems 5.1 United States 5.1.1 Single tax 5.1.2 Two-rate taxation 5.2 Other countries 6 Notes 7 References

[edit] Economic effects

[edit] High efficiency

Most taxes distort economic decisions.^[3] If labor, buildings or machinery and plants are taxed, people are dissuaded from constructive and beneficial activities, and enterprise and efficiency are penalized due to the excess burden of taxation. This does not apply to LVT, which is payable regardless of whether or how well the land is actually used, because the supply of land is inelastic market land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay rather than on the expenses of landlords, and so LVT cannot be passed on to tenants.^[4] The only alleged direct effect of LVT on prices is to lower the market price of land. Put another way, LVT is often said to be justified for economic reasons because if it is implemented properly, it will not deter production, distort market mechanisms or otherwise create deadweight losses the way other taxes do.^[5] A correlation between the use of LVT at the expense of traditional property taxes and greater market efficiency is predicted by economic theory, and has been observed in practice.^[6][7]

Proponents allege that the necessity to pay the tax encourages landowners to develop vacant and under-used land properly or to make way for others who will. The claim is that because LVT deters speculative land holding, dilapidated inner-city areas are returned to productive use, reducing the pressure to build on green-field sites and so reducing urban sprawl. For example Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has taxed land at a rate six times that on improvements since 1975, and this policy has been credited by its long time mayor, Stephen R. Reed with reducing the number of vacant structures in downtown Harrisburg from about 4,200 in 1982 to less than 500. LVT is an ecotax because it ostensibly discourages the waste of locations, which are a finite natural resource.^[8][9][10]

[edit] Reduced speculation

Speculative bubbles in land price direct savings into rent seeking activities rather than productive investment, and usually end in corrective slumps which damage the entire economy. Advocates of the tax claim that Land Value Taxation reduces the speculative element in land pricing, thereby leaving more money for productive capital investment and making the economy more stable.^[11]

[edit] Loss of asset value

Land value is the discounted present value of expected future after-tax rents; so by increasing the taxation of those rents, LVT would reduce the value of all real estate owners' holdings. Critics suggest that a rapid reduction of real estate values could have profoundly negative effects on banks and other financial institutions whose asset portfolios are dominated by real estate mortgage debt, and could thus threaten the soundness of the whole financial system.^[12] If land's value were reduced to zero or near zero by recovering effectively all its rent, as some LVT economists^[13] suggest is possible, total privately held asset value could decline by 25% or more, a massive reduction of private sector wealth. Georgists argue that the reduction in private rent collection would result in a corresponding increase in net wages held by laborers and net interest from capital held by investors.

[edit] Implementation

[edit] Simplicity and certainty

In theory, levying a Land Value Tax is straightforward, requiring only a valuation of the land and the identity of the landholder. There is no need for the tax payers to deal with complicated forms or to give up personal information as with an income tax. Because land cannot be hidden, removed to a tax haven or concealed in an electronic data system,^[14] the tax can not be evaded.

However, critics point out that determining the value of land can be difficult in practice. In a 1796 United States Supreme Court opinion, Justice William Paterson noted that leaving the valuation process up to assessors would cause numerous bureaucratic complexities, as well as non-uniform assessments due to imperfect policies and their interpretations.^[15] Murray Rothbard later raised similar concerns, stating that no government can fairly assess value, which can only be determined by a free market.^[16]

When compared to modern-day property tax evaluations, it has been argued that the valuation of land is simpler than the valuation of improvements because there will be much variation of building style, quality and size from lot to lot but little variation of land value from lot to lot. Modern computerization and statistical techniques have also eased the process; in the 1960s and 1970s, multivariate analysis was introduced as a method of assessing land^[17], which is commonly used by assessment offices to this day.

[edit] Sufficiency of revenue

Some have argued that a land value tax alone cannot raise large enough revenues if LVT were to replace all other taxes.^[18] In a case event where a jurisdiction attempts to levy a land tax that is higher than the entire landowner surplus, it would result in the abandonment of property by those who would be paying and a sharp decline in tax revenue.^[19]

[edit] Requires clear ownership

In some countries, LVT is nearly impossible to implement because of lack of certainty regarding land titles and clearly established land ownership and tenure. If the government can not ascertain the proper owner, it cannot know from whom to collect the tax. The phenomena of lack of clear titles is found world-wide in developing countries^[20] and is in part the subject of the work of the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto.

[edit] Government authority in the United States

In the United States, there have historically been two legal obstacles to the implementation of land value taxes: uniformity clauses and Dillon's Rule.

Although the federal Uniformity Clause has never been an issue, many state constitutions have their own uniformity clauses, and the wording and interpretation of these clauses varies from state to state. For example in 1898, prior to Maryland's amendment of Article 15 of its Declaration of Rights which now specifically allows for land value taxation, Maryland's highest court ruled that Hyattsville's use of land value taxation was unconstitutional.^[21] Since then, Pennsylvania's uniformity clause has been broadly construed, and land value taxation has been used since 1913.^[22]

Each state will have its own legal stance or lack of any stance on LVT; some uniformity clauses explicitly allow some types of classifications of property, some have no uniformity clause, and some do not specifically discuss land qua land at all. Except for the Maryland case of Hyattsville, no state courts have squarely ruled that land and improvements are actually "classes" of property such that uniformity clauses are applicable. As a general rule, as long as each type of property (land, improvements, personal) is taxed uniformly there is no constitutional obstacle. In addition, no court other than the 1898 case in Maryland has actually struck down an attempt to implement land value taxation on the basis of a state uniformity clause.

Even in rather strict uniformity clause states, it is unclear whether the uniformity clause actually prohibits separate land value taxation. Some states have other constitutional provisions - for example in New Jersey, which gives localities maximum home rule authority and have not adopted Dillon's Rule. While the uniformity clauses might be interpreted to prohibit state-wide action, local action may be legitimate.^[23][24]

Although uniformity clauses do not seem to be a major obstacle in most jurisdictions to land value taxation, control of local authority by the state legislature remains a real obstacle, requiring the need for local enabling authority or the abrogation of Dillon's Rule.^[25] In Maryland, for example, municipal corporations have the right implement land value taxation, but the counties, including Baltimore City which is treated as a county in Maryland for certain purposes, do not.^[26]

[edit] Ethics

See also: Georgism

Land (unlike goods and services) has no cost of production. If an ample supply of land of equal desirability were available everywhere, there would be nothing to pay for its use. In reality land acquires a scarcity value owing to the competing needs of the community for living, working and leisure space. According to proponents, the unimproved value of land owes nothing to the individual efforts of the landowner and everything to the community at large. These supporters suggest that the value of land belongs justly and uniquely to the community. Conversely, they argue that the reward for individual effort can belong only to the one who earns it, to spend, save, or give away as he or she may see fit. ^{[27] [28]}

LVT is also justified by some with the philosophical premise that the natural world was originally the common resource of all persons, and therefore LVT is not really a tax, but simply the collection of rent on behalf of those who waive their right of access to the resources they would otherwise have been free to use.

In religious terms, it has been claimed that land is a common gift to all of mankind.^[29] For example, the Catholic Church asserts:

Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich."^[30]

– Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio

In distributism terms, land value also has been alleged to be much maldistributed than income. While sizeable numbers of households own no land, few have no income. For example, 10% of land owners (all corporations) in Baltimore, Maryland own 58% of the taxable land value. The bottom 10% of those who own any land own less than 1% of the total land value. This is a form of Gini Coefficient analysis.^[31] It is because of these distribution issues that land value taxation is sometimes suggested as a moderate, marktet-based form of land reform.

LVT is also purported to act as value capture tax.^{[32][33][34][35]}A new public works project may make adjacent land go up considerably in value, and thus, with a tax on land values, the tax on adjacent land goes up. Thus, the new public improvements would be paid for by those most benefited by the new public improvements -- i.e., those whose land value went up most.

[edit] Advocates

[edit] Physiocrats

The physiocrats were a group of economists who believed that the wealth of nations was derived solely from the value of land agriculture or land development. Their use of the term laissez-faire meant that the only legitimate form of government revenue derived from the value of land. Their theories originated in France and were most popular during the second half of the 18th century. Physiocracy is perhaps the first well developed theory of economics. The movement was particularly dominated by Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727–1781) and François Quesnay (1694–1774)^[36]. It immediately preceded the first modern school, classical economics, which began with the publication of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Smith took the term "laissez faire" from the Physiocrats but gave it a somewhat different meaning connotating free enterprise or a free market economy.

A land tax was advocated by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Alexander Hamilton writing in the Federalist Papers No.36^[37] gives the argument calling it the "most simple and most fit resource" for the several States. It was probably known to Franklin and certainly known by Jefferson as they were ambassadors to France from whence it sprang via the physiocrats Quesnay and Turgot. Jefferson brought his friend Pierre du Pont to the United States to promote the idea.^[38]

[edit] Henry George

Main article: Henry George

The most influential advocate of LVT was Henry George. George (September 2, 1839 – October 29, 1897) was an American political economist and originator of the "Single Tax" on land. He was the author of Progress and Poverty, written in 1879.

The Henry George Foundation of America^[39], a 501 (c) 4 non-profit foundation, was founded in 1926 by some of the leading progressive Democrats in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh Mayors Scully and McNair, City Assessor Percy Williams, State Senator and Allegheny County Democratic Chairman Bernard B. McGinnis, and Councilman George Evans (driving force behind Buhl Planetarium). Its national office is now located in Philadelphia, where Henry George was born.

The Center for the Study of Economics^[40], a 501 (c) 3 non-profit educational foundation, was established in 1980 as the sister organization of the Henry George Foundation of America. Its mission is to research land value taxation, to assist governments in implementation and to study the effect of land based property taxation where used. It suggests implementation where appropriate but does not support political candidates or become involved in the electoral process. The Center also gathers and disseminates articles, studies and monographs on the subject of land based taxation.

HGFA and CSE use actual assessment data and have tax calculators to illustrate how "two-rate" taxation (lower on improvements and higher on land value) might actually be implemented and the effect on parcel by parcel basis in a variety of jurisdictions. They also sponsor the land value tax projects in Maryland^[41], New York^[42], Indiana^[43], Washington^[44], Pennsylvania^[22] and New Jersey^[24].

The HGFA and CSE were instrumentally in providing technical assistance (e.g. how to calculate rates, etc.) to the Pennsylvania cities that adopted two-rate taxation in the 70s, 80s and 90s. They continue to provide technical assistance and do implementation studies across the country.

[edit] British Liberal Party

In the United Kingdom, LVT was an important part of the platform of the British Liberal Party during the early part of the twentieth century - David Lloyd George and H. H. Asquith proposed "to free the land that from this very hour is shackled with the chains of feudalism".^[45] It was also advocated by Winston Churchill early in his career.^[46] Labour's 1931 Budget included a land value tax, but before it came into force it was repealed by the Conservative-dominated National Government that followed shortly after. The modern incarnation of the Liberal Party (not the Liberal Democrats) remains committed to a form of land value taxation as a form of local taxation to replace the Council Tax.^[47]

[edit] Contemporary economists

• Nobel Prize winner William Vickrey believed that "removing almost all business taxes, including property taxes on improvements, excepting only taxes reflecting the marginal social cost of public services rendered to specific activities, and replacing them with takes on site values, would substantially improve the economic efficiency of the jurisdiction."^[48]

• Milton Friedman noted that "[T]he property tax is one of the least bad taxes, because it’s levied on something that cannot be produced — that part that is levied on the land".^[49]

• In 1990, several economists wrote^[50] to then President Mikhail Gorbachev suggesting that Russia use Land Value Taxation in its transition towards a free market economy.^[51]

• In 2000, Florenz Plassmann and Nicolaus Tideman wrote^[52] that when comparing Pennsylvania cities using a higher tax rate on land value and a lower rate on improvements with similar sized Pennsylvania cities using the same rate on land and improvements, the higher land value taxation leads to increased construction within the jurisdiction.^[53][54]

[edit] Land value tax systems

[edit] United States

Every single state in the United States has some form of property tax on real estate and hence, in part, a tax on land value. There are several cities that use LVT to varying degrees, but LVT in its purest form is not used on state or national levels. Land value taxation was tried in the South during Reconstruction as a way to promote land reform. There have also been several attempts throughout history to introduce land value taxation on a national level. In Hylton v. United States, the Supreme Court directly acknowledged that a Land Tax was constitutional, so long as it was apportioned equally among the states. Two of the associate justices explained in their summaries, stating:

[T]he Constitution declares, ... both in theory and practice, a tax on land is deemed to be a direct tax. ... I never entertained a doubt, that the principal, I will not say, the only, objects, that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a capitation tax and a tax on land.^[55]

– Justice William Paterson

I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on land.^[55]

– Justice Samuel Chase

There have also been attempts since then to introduce land value tax legislation, such as:

• The earliest known legislation was the Federal Property Tax Act of 1798.^[56]
• In 1894, a bill was introduced by Representative James G. Maguire of California that would have introduced a Georgist taxation policy.^[57]
• On February 20, 1935, Theodore L. Moritz of Pennsylvania introduced HR 6026, which would have implemented a national land value tax. It would have imposed a 1% tax on the value of land in excess of $3,000.

[edit] Single tax

The first city in the United States to enact land value taxation was Hyattsville, MD in 1898, through the efforts of Judge Jackson H. Ralston. The Maryland Courts subsequently found it to be barred by the Maryland Constitution. Judge Ralston and his supporters commenced a campaign to amend the state Constitution which culminated in the Art. 15 of the Declaration of Rights (which remains today part of the Maryland State Constitution). In addition, he helped see that enabling legislation for towns be passed in 1916, which also remains in effect today.^{[26] [58]}. In addition, the towns of Fairhope, Alabama and Arden, Delaware were founded as model Georgist communities or "single tax colonies".

[edit] Two-rate taxation

Nearly 20 Pennsylvania cities in the USA employ a two-rate or split-rate property tax: taxing the value of land at a higher rate and the value of the buildings and improvements at a lower one. This can be seen as a compromise between pure LVT and an ordinary property tax falling on real estate (land value plus improvement value).^[59] Alternatively, two-rate taxation may be seen as a form that allows gradual transformation of the traditional real estate property tax into a pure land value tax.

Primarily as a result of technical assistance from the Henry George Foundation of America^[39] and the Center for the Study of Economics^[40], nearly two dozen local Pennsylvania jurisdictions (such as Harrisburg^[60]) use two-rate property taxation in which the tax on land value is higher and the tax on improvement value is lower. Pittsburgh used the two-rate system from 1913 to 2001^[61] when an ineffective property assessment system led to a drastic increase in assessed land values during 2001 after years of underassessment, and the system was abandoned in favor of the traditional single-rate property tax. Pittsburgh's tax on land was about 5.77 times the tax on improvements. Notwithstanding the change in 2001, the Pittsburgh Improvement District still employs a pure land value taxation as a surcharge on the regular property tax.

[edit] Other countries

Pure LVT, apart from real estate or generic property taxation, is used in Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Estonia. It is currently being introduced in Namibia, and there are campaigns for its introduction to South Korea and Scotland^[62]. Many more countries have used it in the past, particularly Denmark^[63] and Japan. Many pre-modern societies used land tax systems that were not based on the land's value, but nevertheless approximated a limited LVT by taxing agricultural land according to its yield or expected yield.

Hong Kong is perhaps the best modern example of the successful implementation of a high LVT. The Hong Kong government generates more than 35% of its revenue from land taxes.^[64]. Because of this, they can keep their other taxes rates low or non-existent and still generate a budget surplus.

Several cities around the world also use LVT, including Sydney, Canberra, and many other Australian cities^[6]. It has also been used in Mexicali, Mexico.^[65]

[edit] Notes

[edit] References