Taxation of Land Values
John Orr, M.A.
[A book published in London, 1912,
by P.S. King & Son]
PREFACE
I UNDERSTAND that the views expressed in this little book are not
held by any school of thought, that they do not represent the policy
of any organization. For this reason I have studied them with special
interest. Though new to this generation, most of them have been held
and stated by leading thinkers and statesmen in the past. Locke in
England, Turgot in France, with many of their contemporaries and
successors in both countries, advocated a single tax on land values,
with no belief that such a tax would reduce the incomes of landlords.
This view of theirs is well worth discussion. The genius, character
and achievements of such men as Locke and Turgot are sufficient of
themselves to justify the most thorough examination of any view which
they held so tenaciously, and advocated: with such sincerity. Their
counsels were rejected in their day. They failed to carry their
principles, but that failure is steadily turning into success. We are
on the eve of great social and economic changes, and one of the most
fundamental is connected with the tenure of land and with taxation. We
need more light on the path upon which we are entering, and this light
can only come from wide thought with full discussion. The same
problems which we face to-day confronted our ancestors more than once,
and they may have seen things which we have overlooked. Then there is
the fact that the taxation of land values is explaining itself through
actual working in the British Colonies, and it is important to see
from this explanation what the nature of that tax is.
Any lasting change in the institutions of a country must enter into
them through the minds of its people. The more people to whom such a
change appeals, the more successful and permanent will be its effects.
There must be some aspects of the taxation of land values which have
not yet been made clear, and there must be many minds to which the
presentation of these aspects would bring the conviction that this is
a wise and beneficent proposal. A discussion marked by generous
feeling will bring clearness, for it will not unnecessarily disturb
passions. A discussion marked by fearlessness will also add something,
for it will carry the investigation far enough to reveal more of
truth. There is something reasonable in the mind of every man and
woman which would condemn whatever is unreasonable in our social
system. The endeavour to enlist this reasonable force is always fair.
Some of the views expressed here will undoubtedly appear extreme to
many people; to others the whole treatment, judged by a moral ideal,
will seem to fall short. Nonetheless, but probably the more, they call
for careful consideration.
I should not like to say that the new definition of rent given in
this book is final, or scientifically complete, but it seems to agree
more fully with experience, and to apply more universally, than
Ricardo's. The growth of cities, with their great social activities,
has been followed so closely by the increase of rent that the one is
obviously the cause of the other. Similar activities on a smaller
scale may always have been the cause of rent. Nor is it necessary to
assume that the author's attempt to establish a simpler and more
scientific basis for Political Economy is successful. This will appear
from discussion of the subject. The treatment of it as a science
concerned with human feelings, yet perfectly distinct .from morals,
may make it possible to remove the old charge that it is unrelated to
the conditions in which men live. The mere business aspect of human
relations is important, and is perhaps an adequate basis for a
science. The ideas suggested here admit of expansion. The relations of
this movement for the taxation of land values to other movements for
the improvement of social conditions are complementary not hostile.
A vine-dresser to-day, hoeing his vineyard on the banks of the Arno,
throws out on the road a stone which obstructs his work. Yet this
vineyard has been cultivated since the days of Caesar, and one might
think that all such stones had been removed long ago - not so, neither
here nor in vineyards of any sort.
Mary Fels - London, May, 1912
CONTENTS
- SOME THEORIES OF TAXATION
- SOME EXPERIMENTS AND THEIR LESSONS
- THE VALUATION OF LAND
- TAXATION AND RENT
- VALUE
- THE PRINCIPLE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
- A PRACTICAL POLICY
- APPENDIX: TURGOT'S PRINCIPLE
|
TAXATION OF LAND VALUES
I
SOME THEORIES OF TAXATION
"IT is as demonstrable as any proposition in Euclid
that, if we actually paid a land tax of 10s in the pound, without
paying any other excise or duties, our liberties would be much more
secure, and every landed gentleman might live at least in as much
plenty, and might make a better provision for his family than under
the present mode of taxation."
This statement was made by Sir William Wyndham, an English landowner,
son-in-law of the Duke of Somerset, and Chancellor of the Exchequer in
Queen Anne's last two Parliaments. He was speaking in the House of
Commons on February 9, 1732, against Walpole's motion for the revival
of the Salt Duty; he encroached on the Sinking Fund, with the avowed
object of reducing the Land Tax. He introduced his Excise Bill for the
same purpose, but was beaten by Wyndham, and compelled to withdraw it.
The struggle was largely one between landowners, and those of them
who advocated the taxation of land values did so from the strictly
practical point of view. Walpole and his school professed that they
could save their rents by exempting them from direct taxation.
Wyndham, Plumer, Carteret and others disproved this. They understood
taxation as it has hardly been understood by politicians since. They
told Walpole that he was deceived, and that he was deceiving the
landowners, in thinking and acting as if he could raise the value of
land by striking with his taxes at the labourers, farmers, merchants
and manufacturers of the country. Rent is reduced by the full amount
of the taxes paid by tenants in any form; it is still further reduced
by the effect of these taxes in impoverishing many people, and in
interfering with production and trade.
This was the view of the taxation of land values taken by Locke, and
by the ablest and most impartial politicians and writers in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the Land Tax was being
abandoned for Excise Duties. The idea has emerged again from modern
experience, and obtruded: itself on the attention of general
observers. It is supported by the actual operation of the system in
the British Colonies. Writing about the heavy Land Tax imposed by the
Commonwealth Government, the Australian correspondent of the Times
says:
"The Land Tax has come to stay. In operation for little more
than a year, it has not had exactly the effect that its advocates
hoped, or its opponents prophesied; it has not cheapened land to any
material extent, and it has not spread red ruin among the owners of
estates.
Broadly speaking, it has left values very much as they
were."[1]
That is, the interpretation of the taxation of land values by its
advocates and opponents has not been in harmony with the principle, as
the effects of its application have shown. This misinterpretation has
been a serious obstacle to the progress of the, movement. Many
opponents of the taxation of land values have sought to prove that the
present system of taxation is almost the best possible for the
producing classes, while many advocates of the Land Tax have agreed
that the present system has been the best possible for landowners. By
their united efforts they have succeeded in giving a large number of
people good cause to cling to what appears to be a perfect vice in
the, economic system.
Walpole did much to make the taxation of industry the, settled policy
of this country, violating, as his opponents contended, the essential
principle of taxation and of political economy. In his short speech
introducing the motion for reviving the Salt Duty he said:
"If I have, sir, the good luck to succeed so far in
my wishes, as to have this motion approved of, I shall then beg
leave to move that the sum of 1s. in the pound, and no more, be
raised for this year upon land.
I declare I had no other view
but that of procuring some ease, some relief, to the landed
interest. If this be agreed to, some means may be fallen upon to
relieve them of the whole again next year; and I shall always look
upon it as a great honour that, after a continuance of a land tax of
four, three, or two shillings at least in the pound for 40 years
together, it was at last reduced to one, at a time when I had a
share in the administration of the affairs of the nation."
Walpole's second step in this direction was taken on February 23,
1733, when he moved that £500,000 should be taken from the
Sinking Fund for the expenses of the year. "This motion," he
said, "ought the rather to be agreed to, more especially by those
who have a regard for the landed interest, because we can thereby
continue to the landed gentlemen that ease which we granted them last
year." His third step was the introduction of the Excise Bill on
March 14 of the same year, recommended again by references to "the
grievous entail of a heavy land tax."
Walpole's guiding principle here is an exclusive regard for the
landed interest, and disregard of the men engaged in production.
Wyndham, on the other hand, judged every proposal of this kind with
reference to its effects on industry, on the assumption that if
industry is in a sound condition, every interest depending on it will
be safe. This seems to be the only correct point of view, and its
adoption or rejection makes all the difference in the conclusion
reached.
"The Salt Duty," he said, "was taken off by this House
as a tax the most grievous to the labourer and to the poor of this
nation, and the Sinking Fund was thereby diminished; for the relief of
the poor we did consent to this encroachment on that sacred Fund, but
that very tax was laid on because some gentlemen pretended to have:
found out that the landed gentlemen of England were poorer than the
poor!"[2]
"I hope," he said, speaking against the Excise Bill, "the
landed gentlemen are not to be caught by such baits. Every landed
gentleman will do well to consider what value their lands would be of,
if, for the sake of a small and immediate ease to themselves, they
should be induced to oppress and destroy the trade of their country.
...This is one reason for the landed gentlemen not to accept of the
pretended ease now offered, to them."[3]
A study of the debates in Parliament during these years will show how
deeply and carefully some men had considered these questions. They
never made the fatal admission that legislators could oppress the
producers of wealth by taxation, and that under such treatment these
would do the best for themselves in business, and, through their own
prosperity, the best for all others with whom they have business
connections. Now that we are approaching again with firmer step the
position which our ancestors occupied, we can learn from their
experience. One extract from these debates will indicate how similar,
not only in substance, but in language, was the controversy of that
day to the present controversy.
"This tax upon salt," said Lord Bathurst, "is, my
lords, so far from being a just and equal tax, that it is the most
unjust and the most oppressive tax that ever was set on foot in this
nation. To the public expense every man ought to contribute according
to the benefit he receives."[4] This view of taxation, which
alone is in harmony with business experience, was handed down through
various writings for more than a century. The French Economists of the
eighteenth century; keeping in this respect close to the actual facts
of life, adopted it. Quesnay did not see what advantage landlords got
from taxes on commodities which turned respectable wage-earners into "beggars
and thieves, a species of indirect impositions that walked about in an
arbitrary manner to burden the producers."
Perhaps the last and most complete statement of this theory with
reference to Imperial taxation is that of Dr. Chalmers. Summarizing
his arguments, he said:
"That, with the exception of their first brief and temporary
effect on wages and the profits of circulating capital, and of their
more prolonged effect on the profits of fixed capital - all taxes fall
upon land. That, to estimate the whole effect of taxes upon land, we
should add to the effect of them, in aggravating the expenditure of
landlords, the effect of them in lessening their receipts. That, every
tax which bears on the profit or maintenance of the agricultural
capitalists, and which bears on the wages or maintenance of the
agricultural, and. their secondary, labourers, and, generally, which
enhances the expenses of farm management, creates a deduction, pro
tanto,, from the rent. That, for the commutation of all taxes into
a territorial and funded impost, there would be a full equivalent to
the landlords first, in the lessened expenses of their living; and,
secondly; in the enlarged rent of all the land now under cultivation.
And that they, over and above, would obtain more than an equivalent in
the new rent which would accrue form the more extended cultivation of
their land, now unburdened of all those taxes by which the cultivation
had formerly been limited."[5]
It may be asked why, if the taxation of land values is so practicable
and so universally advantageous, it was not adopted long ago by
legislators. The answer is obvious. The problem of taxation is one of
the most difficult which societies have to solve. Its nature is not
yet understood. The answer to one question brought Locke, Wyndham,
Quesnay, Turgot and Chalmers to the economic, the only relevant,
principle of taxation. That question was: Which tax will give the
producers of wealth the greatest measure of security, freedom .and
encouragement? Having settled this they were satisfied. This theory of
taxation, so clearly stated by these writers and statesmen, has been
lost to view for a long period, and for lack of its guidance we have
become involved in practical difficulties. Unlike their successors,
these economists had no misgivings about the sufficiency of land
values to provide a basis for taxation. This seems to be the greatest
obstacle in the way of modern legislators. It was stated by Lord
Robson, at that time Attorney-General. He was speaking in the House of
Commons on April 27, 1910.
"It has been argued," he said, "whether all taxes
should not be raised out of the land. If time allowed, I should be
willing to deal with that question, but in the five minutes at my
disposal I would advance one objection to that which has not been
carefully considered by those who advance that suggestion. Are site
values equal to the immense burden which would be laid upon them, if
they were made the sole subject-matter of rating? Take, for instance,
property in London worth £50 per year. The site value of that
property is equal, on a fair average, to something like £10 a
year, and the rates will be equal to something like £18 a year,
so that you could not possibly levy the whole of your rates upon the
site value, if you made it the only subject-matter for taxation. The
rate would be 20s. or 30s. in the pound, a result which would mean
that the building, which you desire wholly to exempt from taxation,
would nevertheless be subject to taxation."
From this point of view, the scheme seems to be very impracticable,
and decidedly menacing to the landowners. It has been suggested that
Lord Robson was disingenuous, if not actually stupid, in thus stating
his objection. But those who make the suggestion have not solved the
problem as presented by him. If site value is taken as the full
ground-rent which the landlord could obtain by letting the site and
nothing more, there are properties where the rates would amount to
6os. in the pound on this site value.
A general answer is given to this to the effect that the high site
values in the cities will make good any deficiency in the assessable
basis of the suburbs and rural districts. But this general answer will
not serve the statesman's purpose when he is introducing a bill to
deal with the rating or taxation of the whole country. There are too
many interests involved, too many mortgagors who would suffer if the
returns to mortgagees were reduced by a tax, too many of the present
recipients of rent who would lose in order that new recipients of rent
might be created. Even if site values, in the sense in which this
expression is used by Lord Robson, were sufficient to bear the full
burden of the rates, no Government would take the unwise and unjust
step of appropriating those site values to pay the present rates,
making a gift of other site values to other persons.
But the whole of Lord Robson's difficulty arises from his definition
of site value, which he assumes to be the same as the ground-rent. It
is doubtful, however, if this definition has any sanction in political
economy. There is a wider and more practical definition which treats
the site value of any property as the ground-rent received by the
landlord together with all rates and taxes paid by the occupier. This
economic site value is determined by what occupiers are prepared to
pay in all these forms for the right to use the land. No matter how
often the total charge is divided, they will pay the same amount;
except that, where division of the taxes is used as a means of
oppressing them, and of reducing their wages, they will pay less.
According to this definition, in the example which Lord Robson gives,
the site value for rating purposes is not £10, but £28 - the
ground-rent plus the amount of the rates. With a rate on the value of
all land, whether used or unused, contributions would be received in
respect of subjects in the same rating area that are now unrated or
underrated, and instead of the occupier in this case being called upon
to pay £18, his proportion of the amount to be raised might be
only £16. Thus a rate of 57 per cent, on the site value would be
sufficient, to obtain the necessary revenue, and, other things
remaining the same, the sum receivable by the landowners would be £12
instead of £10. To obtain a complete assessable basis for the
purpose of local taxation, it is only necessary for the assessors to
add the present rates to the annual land value which can be realized
by the landowners. Thus, if the annual land value is £150,000,000,
and if the amount raised in rates is £78,000,000, the sum of
these two amounts is the basis on which the latter would be raised.
It is important to appreciate the effect of this commonly accepted
theory stated by Lord Robson on landlords and statesmen. They have
believed that a tax of 60 or 70 per cent; on what is now called the
value of land would involve an immediate and equal reduction of all
incomes from this source. It seems unreasonable to ask landlords to
accept this view, and at the same time to ask that they should support
the proposal that such a tax should be imposed at once. No less
difficult is the position of the statesman who is called upon to
introduce such legislation. However strong his conviction may be that
this is the ideal system of taxation, and that associated with it is
the most perfect system of land tenure, he will hesitate before he
upsets the financial position of any class in the community. There is
little doubt that the fear of this result has deterred our Home and
Colonial Governments from adopting the taxation of land values in a
straightforward and consistent manner.
But this practical objection to the proposal is entirely removed by
two considerations: - (1) by the definition of the value of land in
its economic sense, the only sense which is of practical use for
purposes of taxation; (2) by the correct interpretation of the effects
of a tax on the value of land.
There is no difference of opinion among practical men on the first
point, and it is remarkable that within recent years it has been most
clearly stated by thorough-going opponents of the taxation of land
values. Mr. H. Trustram Eve has been untiring in his criticism of the
proposal, yet the ground slipped from beneath his feet in his own
impartial inquiry into the subject. Mr. Eve proves that site value for
rating purposes is the ground-rent plus the rates.
"The fact is," he says, "that
unconsciously people work out rents assuming they will pay rates,
and, if there were no rates, they would think in higher terms. From
an economic point of view, the correct way of thinking is to take
the theoretical, rate-free, economic rent, and, having fixed that,
make a calculation as to the amount of rates, and the balance is the
sum payable for what is called rent, but which really is rent less
rates."[6]
Mr. Eve seems to oppose the taxation of land values on every possible
ground, because it is unjust, unworkable and detrimental to the State.
But his argument here proves that it is the opposite of all these,
that it is the most practicable scheme conceivable.
If anyone has distinguished himself by his opposition to this
movement, it is Mr. Harold Cox. While others oppose it as
Conservatives, frankly in favour of existing privileges, he opposes it
as a Liberal, and yet, in the course of a calm investigation, he
argues himself into the most substantial support of the principle. He
claims to have proved that "local taxation falls in reality upon
the owners of the soil." ... "Common sense," he adds, "suggests
that the nominal burden should be laid where the real burden must
finally fall," and he refers to this as "a simple solution
of the problem of local taxation."[7] In the light of these
arguments, it is obvious that, if the whole of our local taxation,
amounting to £78,000,000, were levied directly on land values,
the landlords would not lose this amount, and the ratepayers would not
receive it. The advantages to the community from this reform will come
in other ways than by such rude transitions.
According to this theory, the last ground for practical objection is
removed by consideration of the effect of a tax on land values on the
value of land itself. There has been a common impression that the
value of land generally would be reduced under the imposition of a
direct tax on all land. This view also carried with it a presentiment
of financial collapse in certain quarters. But it seems to be quite as
unfounded and impracticable as the previous view. The French have a
proverb which expresses the truth finally on this matter - Tant
vaut I'homme, tamt vaut la terre - the value of land depends on
the value of man. From its first introduction, the taxation of land
values increases the value of men, and, therefore, it increases the
value of land. When men are set free economically, when production is
increased, and wages raised, a corresponding increase in the value of
land must inevitably follow.
From this point of view there never was a policy so fitted to commend
itself to statesmen. The generous hopes of those who have adopted it
have always been more than fulfilled, because every application of it
appeals immediately and sensibly to men's economic aspirations.
Problems that now seem difficult of solution would be easily solved
under its influence. It is poverty that adds a baffling element to
every one of our social problems, and this policy steadily diminishes
poverty. The problem of local and national taxation acquires its hard
and insoluble aspect from the poverty which presses heavily upon
communities, as it presses upon individuals, and relief will come, not
so much from readjustment of the different burdens between the local
areas and the nation, as from the change in the basis of taxation.
The end of this reform will be reached by a series of steps. Wrong
principles have been followed in the past, and strong interests have
grown around them. These interests have been threatened with
extinction at the earliest possible moment, and this threat has given
rise to the fear of poverty in the minds of the people affected, a
poverty which appears more or less imminent according to the
representation of the proposal. But it is impossible for us to
conceive, and therefore impossible for us to describe, what the
effects of the last step in this reform will be, because each step
will change not only the position but the outlook of every class. The
inadequate representation of the effects of the last, it may be the
twentieth, step is certain to cause misunderstanding in minds whose
outlook is entirely determined by present conditions of poverty.
Opponents have taken advantage of this fact, and, by attaching to the
first step the imaginary effects of the last have been able to give it
an impracticable appearance.
But legislators need have no fear that the course of this reform will
lead them over the rough and uneven roads which appear in these
pictures of the mind. The testimony of the Times correspondent
with regard to the effect of the tax in Australia should do something
to allay anxiety. This report and others, coming from countries where
the Land Tax is in force, justify and will ultimately compel, a
reconsideration of the whole theory of taxation. From this inquiry we
shall learn to distinguish between economic laws and legal enactments,
we shall come back to Locke's position, and look a little deeper than
the first superficial appearance.
"A tax," says Locke, "laid upon land seems hard to the
landholder, because it is so much money going visibly out of his
pocket; and, therefore, as an ease to himself, the landholder is
always forward to lay it upon commodities. But if he will thoroughly
consider it, and examine the effects, he will find he buys this
seeming ease at a very dear rate; and, though he pays not this tax
immediately out of his own purse, yet his purse will find it by a
greater want of money there at the end of the year than that comes to,
with the lessening of his rents to boot, which is a settled and
lasting evil, that will stick upon him beyond the present payment."[8]
This argument means that the proposal to substitute a tax on land
values for all the present taxes is simply a proposal to substitute a
direct tax on land values for indirect taxes on land values, and in
doing so to avoid the indefinite loss incurred by every class through
the indirect method. Nothing could be more practicable, or more
agreeable to every reasonable person. The opposite view with regard to
the nature of this reform has been derived from the misapplication of
the argument which is used to prove that a tax on land values cannot
be shifted. When the proposal to tax land values has been made,
practical men have remarked that rents would rise owing to the relief
granted to occupiers. Treating this as an objection, land taxers
committed the double fallacy of begging the question and of arguing to
the wrong point. They replied that a tax on economic rent cannot be
shifted, a statement which is true. But this statement implies that
existing taxes are not taxes on economic rent, which is an unsettled
question. It also ignores the effect of the repeal of these taxes on
the rent payable, if the landlord were to assume the burden now borne
by the tenant, which is the only point of the remark. In so far as the
advocacy of the taxation of land values rests on this fallacy, it
assumes an impracticable form. Stripped of those features that do not
belong to the principle itself, it will appear the soundest business
policy.
With reference to the incidence of existing taxes, the opinion of
Professor Seligman, who also opposes the taxation of land values, is
worth quoting. After reviewing all the known theories of taxation, he
concludes thus: "If we look at taxable objects from the
standpoint of revenue, we have found that there are only two kinds of
revenue on which a tax, when once imposed, necessarily remains. These
are economic rent and pure profits."[8] We are not sure about the
"pure profits." Professor Seligman defines them as
inheritances, gifts, gains from speculation." But the part of
these that is not economic rent is, probably, not very large. If,
therefore, economic rent is the only form of revenue on which taxes
necessarily remain, it is evident that they must always be shifted
from wages and interest to economic rent, and all the efforts to
prevent this by indirect taxation are futile.
NOTES AND REFERENCES TO PART 1
- Times, February 28,
1912.
- House of Lords, March 22,
1732.
- House of Commons, February 23,
1733.
- House of Commons, March 14,
1733.
- Political Economy, pp.
561-2.
- The Land Agents' Record,
June 17, 1911.
- Land Nationalization,
p.96.
- Shifting and Incidence of
Taxation, p.184 of American Economic Association Edition.
Part
2
|