The Rich, The Poor, Tax and Land Wealth

People on the Left often come up with the statistic that poorer people pay more tax the richest in society. This is true to an extent, but it masks the fact that the poorest in society also receive money back from the state via benefits and tax credits. I made this point in a video:

However, since making this video, I came across a chap called Fred Harrison who has written an excellent blog and made a couple of videos on how the richest in society derive huge wealth from their land wealth. And this wealth has nothing much to do with their own efforts and everything to do with public investment.

“PEOPLE whom they brand as “benefit scroungers” are routinely ridiculed by sections of the media. Television companies even make documentaries about people who should not qualify for tax-funded benefits. But the luckiest scroungers of state largesse – I am one of them – are never held to account for the money they pocket from the public purse. That is because the scam is lawful.

The scam is a legacy of a bygone age of irresponsible governance. We do not talk about it because the debate about the housing crisis is distorted by notions such as “hard-working middle class home-owners”. But if we continue to advocate the need to “get on the housing ladder”, there is no chance of solving the problem of unaffordable housing.

At the heart of the crisis is the way government raises and spends our money. Let’s examine the covert way in which tax policy interfaces with the housing market, and one of the techniques for distracting us from the biggest financial scandal facing the nation.

The Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA), a libertarian champion of taxpayers, wants government to reduce its tax-take. To argue its case, it points out that the average household in the top 20% of income earners will pay more into the public purse than any other group of people. And we are expected to believe that this is “progressive taxation”. It’s fair that the rich should pay the most into the public purse – right? An individual within the top 20% bracket will pay, on average, £1,686,970 in tax over his working lifetime.1 The calculation is based on Office for National Statistics data for 2016.

But the TPA does not reveal that high-tax payers are the nation’s biggest winners from the State’s handout of benefits. By following the money trail, we discover that the public services they enjoy are funded out of the pockets of low-income families. I will illustrate this tax-scam with an example taken from London.

According to the estate agency Rightmove, terraced properties in London’s Kensington had an average sold price of £4,507,685 in the 12 months to August 2016. Semi-detached properties averaged £7,633,846. What does that mean for the owner of a (say) £5m residential property, who would be in the top 20% income bracket? With house prices rising at conservatively estimated rates of increase between 2017 and 2021 (with a weakening of prices in 2019), I estimate that the value of that £5m dwelling will increase by about £1,700,000. In other words, the average high-income taxpayer will be reimbursed for his whole lifetime tax liabilities in five years flat!

Who reimbursed him with those windfall capital gains? Father Christmas? An alchemist holed up in a cave in the Swiss Alps who splays out the riches that come cascading down from the heavens and into the pockets of the owners of residential property?

No. Capital gain measures the value of the location occupied by the house, the value which government fails to collect to defray the cost of the services it delivers. It is the subsidy to property owners for which there is no means test.

The family occupying that £5m house in Kensington will enjoy access to public services which are funded, in part, by low-income taxpayers who live in rented accommodation.

This State-sponsored device for making the rich richer (and the poor, poorer) means that, for most of their lives, rich folk enjoy public services without paying for them. I first spelt out the economics of this scam in 2006. Governments turn a blind eye to the injustice while wringing their hands in despair at not being able to deliver affordable housing to people on the lowest incomes.”

How to make the Queen and our dukes pay their way: tax their land (2016)

Just came across an excellent article by Dominic Frisby making the case for a single Land Value Tax to recoup some of the land value that the small number of landowners in the UK enjoy:

“There are about 65 million people in the UK and 60 million acres of land – almost enough, in theory, for an acre each. (It’s not quite that simple, of course: not all acres are equal.) Yet about two-thirds of the land – 40 million acres – is owned by fewer than 6,000 people. If there is a more telling statistic about the unequal distribution of wealth in this country, I’d like to know what it is.

The Queen is one of 6,000 landowners who own two third of the land in the UK.
The Queen is one of 6,000 landowners who own two third of the land in the UK.

In the 19th century landowners paid tax on their land. Today, so corrupt is our system of taxation, they actually receive subsidies for it. The rest of us, meanwhile, must pay council tax.

The largest landowners exploit a tax loophole. Land is passed from one generation to the next via the tax avoidance vehicle that is the trust. The rest of us must pay inheritance tax.

The complexity and inconsistency of our tax systems are to blame for so much wealth inequality. One group has the resources to find the loopholes and exploit them, the rest of us don’t: and so pay more on a proportional basis. Complexity allows there to be one rule for some and another for everybody else.

About the only way the person who starts out with nothing can improve his or her lot is through labour. And yet we tax labour constantly and heavily. The worker pays the vast majority of taxes: 40% of government revenue comes from income tax and national insurance, with another 20% from VAT.

The wealth of the super-rich does not derive from their labour, however. It derives from the appreciation in the value of their land, their houses, their stocks, their shares, their bonds, their fine art – what economists call their assets. These go untaxed, unless you sell. So most don’t.

If you want to redistribute wealth naturally, rather than via the moral minefield that is state re-allocation, the answer lies in changing the way we tax people.

Instead of taxing our labour – what we produce – why don’t we tax what we use? Instead of taxing the wealth that is earned, why don’t we tax the wealth that is unearned? I’m talking about land. Nobody made the land. Nature gave it to us. By building on it, or farming it, or mining it, you have improved it, but the land itself was always there. So let us look solely at the unimproved value of the land. This is easy to assess.

If you want the right to occupy a piece of land, and you want the government to protect your title to that land, then a rent should be paid to the community that reflects the value of that land, because it is the needs of the community which have given that land value. What I’m describing might sound extremely left wing, but the granddaddy of rightwing economists, Milton Friedman, described it as the, “least bad tax”: that is LVT – land value tax.

Who would pay the most if we hand land value tax in the UK? The Queen (she owns most of it), the Duke of Buccleuch, the Duke of Atholl, Captain Alwyne Farquharson, pension funds, the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Defence and, of course, the new Duke of Westminster – or rather the Grosvenor Trust, which owns the land.

The late duke may have been a canny businessman, but he did not invent anything new, he did not bring some amazing new product or service to the world, which we all wanted to use. His ancestors benefited from the corn laws 200 years ago and the estates were built. Now planning laws are such that few can build anything new. The estate, which owns some of the most desirable land in London, was effectively handed a monopoly and the duke made good from the fact that so many people want to live and work in London.

There’s big money to be made in land banking but there is nothing creative about it. You are not bringing anything new to the world or improving it. It is simply exploiting the restrictive planning laws in this country that prevent progress. It is crony capitalism at its worst.

If you don’t want to pay land value tax, you don’t have to. This is a tax that is voluntary. You simply sell the land to someone who is prepared to.

The amounts of tax payable are clear. It’s an easy tax to administer. It doesn’t require 10 million words of tax code. And there need be no loopholes. The land is here – it is not in the Cayman Islands – and you are the owner.

The Green party actually has LVT in its manifesto, but it has it in addition to other taxes. LVT should replace other taxes.

Remember the mantra: don’t tax labour, tax land. Not only would it make for a much healthier, happier and more productive society, it would make for one in which wealth is more fairly distributed.”

One in three homes with planning permission aren’t being built

A recent article in the Telegraph drew attention to evidence of land banking in the UK.One of the main factors driving up housing costs in the UK, and especially in London, is land banking. This is a process whereby investors buy land as an investment but don’t build on it because they know the value of the land will go up regardless of what they do. I find the idea of a land value tax attractive because it would discourage land banking as the owners would be taxed according to the value of the land even if they have not built on it.

“Almost a third of sites which have been given the green light to have homes built on have not been completed within the last five years, according to new research by Shelter.

The percentage of completions as a proportion of permissions granted
The percentage of completions as a proportion of permissions granted

It found that just 68pc of sites with detailed planning permission had completed properties built on them within five years. This meant there were 320,000 homes which had not been built over this period despite having been given the go-ahead, and suggests that developers and landowners are engaging in ‘land banking’, sitting on land and waiting for it to increase in value.

There is a particularly high deficit in London, where 52pc of detailed planning permissions granted for homes have been completed within the last five years, with a one year lag between permission being granted and a unit being built. This equals a shortfall of 106,968 homes in that period.

Areas around the capital conversely have much higher levels of building: in the east of England, 86pc of such sites have been completed, and in the South East, that figure is 71pc.

Part of this geographical disparity can be explained by the more complicated nature of development in London, which is largely on brownfield land that takes longer to prepare.

Anne Baxendale, head of communications, policy and campaigns at Shelter, said: “Our country’s inefficient housebuilding system means developers perversely make more profit sitting on land than they would by building homes – this is especially acute in London.

“The situation is slightly better outside London where developers can take advantage of lower land costs and rising house prices. This means planning permissions have been converting into more actual homes.”

Developers deny land banking, saying that generally they make more profit by building on it. The Shelter research also found that during the same period the profits of the five biggest housebuilders in the UK soared by 388pc, as they recovered from the financial crisis.

The housing white paper, announced by the Government in February, suggested that councils would be given greater powers to carry out compulsory purchase orders on land which was not being built on.”

Could people buying new cars on credit trigger a fresh financial crisis?

A recent article in the This Is Money is one of many to draw attention to the rise in car finance in the UK which many fear might trigger a financial crash.

“Could people buying new cars on the never-never really trigger a financial crisis?

It seems unlikely, doesn’t it?

In light of the sheer number of new cars driving around – and the fact most people don’t have a spare £30,000 to drop on one – it won’t have escaped many people’s notice that there’s been a finance boom.

But if buyers can’t afford it, that’s their problem isn’t it?

Many fear that the rise in car finance could be the new Sup prime
Many fear that the rise in car finance could be the new Sup prime

They might struggle with the payments, they could even get the car repossessed and a dirty great mark on their credit record.

But that won’t affect you, will it? Or the world of proper finance, banks, stock markets and all that?

Yet, the Bank of England has vocally joined the list of people worried about all this.

The clue is that it’s not the borrowers it’s concerned about, it’s the lenders.

A huge industry has grown up in car finance to keep new motors rolling out of the factories, into dealers, and then onto our roads.

For many of the motoring giants, car making is a volume game. Flogging them can be surprisingly low margin, so manufacturers will go to great lengths to keep things flowing – and that includes financial engineering.

This has delivered the rise of the personal contract plan, or PCP deal. These combine car ownership into a small deposit (or none at all) and a nice manageable monthly payment.

Except, most customers never really own the car. They simply pay for its depreciation over a set contract period, such as three years, and at the end they choose either to make a final payment or hand it back.

Handing it back and getting another new car proves an unsurprisingly popular option. Some don’t even wait out the term, and voluntarily cancel their agreement early and hand back their vehicle, in order to get yet another new car before the deal is up.

There is a massive global financial system behind this. Car companies have finance divisions and in some cases even their own banks, institutional lenders supply funding for loans, and customers’ finance deals are bundled together and resold to investors.

The problem is that PCP works with a guaranteed future value at the end of the deal term.

These have typically been played conservatively low to allow for a slight fall in used car values and to leave some money on the table for customers.

That’s because when they discover their car’s trade in value is higher than the minimum guarantee, they can use the gap between the two to finance another car and start the game again.

But as time has passed, to keep customers buying those minimum guarantees have crept up – reducing monthly payments as there is less depreciation to pay for.

The Daily Mail conducted an investigation into car finance to show how people on low income are being offered high value cars
The Daily Mail conducted an investigation into car finance to show how people on low income are being offered high value cars

What sinks the whole thing is if used car prices take a decent tumble. The car finance company then gets back a vehicle worth less than it projected. When it sells it on, it makes a loss.

On a small scale this is not a problem, on a very big one it is.

What exacerbates this is that it’s an open secret that car finance is not exactly the most stringent when it comes maintaining high standards.

On one side you have a buyer who really wants the best new car possible, on the other you have a salesman or woman who’d like to sell the most expensive one that they can – loaded up with as many options as possible.

The car finance in the middle greases the wheels and while things have improved in recent times, there are an awful lot of things going on here that would never pass muster in today’s more cautious post financial-crisis banks.

The concern for some time has been a glut of second hand cars driving down prices. But the major worry now is falling demand for diesel cars, driven by tax and pollution fears, which is pushing down values of used vehicles.

The industry did its maths on higher values and could be forced to take a haircut at the same time as trying to fund selling more new cars.

No one really knows how this will play out.

This is not to say it will be a contagious re-run of the financial crisis – but you can bet that in the world of car finance there’s some very nervous people right now.”

The truth about housing wealth is that most of us didn’t earn it

The Independent carried a thought provoking article recently which argued that wealth deriving from land value is essentially unearned, and should be taxed:

“In a new report by the Resolution Foundation one statistic stands out. According to the think tank around 80 per cent of net property wealth growth since the early 1990s has been a consequence of a housing boom, rather than active savings decisions by households.

This equates to around £2.3 trillion of windfall property value appreciation. For homeowners born in the Forties and Fifties the average “passive” benefit is around £80,000. For those born in the Sixties the average windfall is £60,000.

Property prices surge not so much due to anything the owner does, but because of other people's activity and public investment
Property prices surge not so much due to anything the owner does, but because of other people’s activity and public investment

The Resolution Foundation report makes it clear that UK overall wealth accumulation is considerably driven by property, which has been largely inflated by a housing boom. If we’re serious about tackling high UK wealth inequality (which seems to be rising still further) we can only do so by tackling housing.

There are a multitude of reasons why UK house prices are so high relative to incomes and homeownership rates are falling. Excessively rigid supply-restricting post-war planning controls, particularly the misnamed “green belt”, around big cities, are a major culprit. Indefatigable nimby campaigns of opposition by existing homeowners when new developments are proposed also harmfully suppress supply.

Sclerotic local authorities that no longer build social housing, big corporate builders with little interest in constructing new homes in sufficient volume, a financial system set up to lend for residential property purchases but not business investment, politicians who offer cynical subsidies to demand: all these contribute to the mess.

But a significant driver is our irrational and grossly distorting property taxation system. The council tax is inexcusably regressive. Stamp duty is only levied on transactions, discouraging people from moving when they otherwise would. There is no VAT on newly built housing.

High-value property is undertaxed. Homeowners face no capital gains tax. And David Cameron and George Osborne removed family homes worth up to £1m from the inheritance tax net.

Bank of England chief economist Andy Haldane got into trouble last year for pointing out what everyone knows to be true: that you’ll tend to get better returns from property than from a pension.

Given such obvious financial incentives, it should come as no surprise that so many of us are obsessed with property as an asset class, that we are so prone to boom-bust cycles, where we bid up prices ever higher and stretch the link with economic fundamentals to breaking point.

As Resolution shows, while residential property wealth has been spiralling as a share of GDP, property taxes have been flat. The problem with Ed Miliband’s mansion tax is not that it was unfair, but that it wasn’t fair enough. The regressive council tax system should be reformed so that all property – not just £2m houses – is taxed at a flat rate on its market value.

The Grenfell Tower disaster has pushed housing to the top of the political agenda in the UK.
The Grenfell Tower disaster has pushed housing to the top of the political agenda in the UK.

The Grenfell Tower tragedy has exposed the property inequality gulf that exists in modern Britain with brutal clarity. We see unsafe, overcrowded and oversubscribed social housing lying next to under-occupied multi-million pound Kensington townhouses whose value has exploded in recent decades.

Ed Miliband’s 2015 crucifixion over his mansion tax proposal seems an aeon ago. In the wake of the conventional wisdom-scrambling General Election, there appears to be a healthy new willingness among the political classes to consider solutions that were for so long written off as economically logical but electorally impractical.

But as the “dementia tax” property-based backlash showed, the argument still needs to be made, the case laid out persuasively. “You didn’t build that,” cried Barack Obama during the 2012 Presidential election, making a point about the degree to which private US businesses rely for their economic success on state-provided infrastructure such as roads and bridges.

“You didn’t earn that,” could be an equivalent progressive rallying cry when it comes to the long-overdue reform of the taxation of British housing wealth.”