Toward Rent Recovery
Roy Langston
[Reprinted from a Land-Cafe online
discussion, 27 April, 2007]
Please take the following more as a practical political
recommendation rather than economic theory. Feedback appreciated.
Implementing a system to recover publicly created land rent for the
purposes and benefit of the public that creates will be difficult, but
will be easier and ultimately more successful if the people
implementing it follow a sound plan based on economic and political
realities. The problem of how to obtain the political power to
implement land rent recovery is unique to each jurisdiction, and there
is no one-size-fits-all solution. Size matters: politics in a smaller
jurisdiction may be easier to influence, and rent recovery advocates
can select a good candidate jurisdiction based on how the reform will
affect the majority of voters there. On the other hand, a small
jurisdiction typically lacks the authority to make all the desired
policy changes, especially to reduce other taxes (though the
efficiency gains with LVT imply some reduction of other tax
liabilities, especially income and sales taxes, as prices decline
relative to wages). Where power lies is also important. In the
jurisdictions politically dominated by large landowners where land
reform is needed most, rent recovery will be difficult, perhaps
impossible to implement until other events destabilize the power
structure. So we will likely enjoy more success in jurisdictions where
land reform is already on the table, and landowners' financial
interests have less influence on policy than other considerations --
places like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, Israel, and perhaps
others where sheer desperation may prompt those in power to seek a
genuine solution to refractory economic and social problems, like
Zimbabwe (or indeed almost any country in Africa), North Korea, or
Haiti. The most promising candidates for land rent recovery where
landowner privilege is well established are likely to be places where
the majority of voters are not landowners, like Detroit, NYC, and
Washington DC in the USA, and numerous cities in other countries.
Where private landowning is not established (e.g., China), or is
already being challenged by the government (e.g., Venezuela), the
critical features of a sound system to recover the rent of public land
will be to:
1. Provide secure tenure and freedom of productive use -- generally
including a limited subletting right -- so as to maximize the lease
amounts users willingly pay while preventing misuses that could reduce
future rents;
2. Establish site rents through free and transparent market bidding
for exclusive use and tenure of duration suitable to the expected and
designated use -- this might range from less than 10 years for pasture
or forest land where no significant improvement is anticipated, to 50
years where construction of high-density fixed improvements with a
long useful life is anticipated;
3. Index the rents to local GDP as available statistical data permit;
4. Limit lease terms to 50 years before another market-based
recalibration of the rent, and index the recalibrated rent to local
GDP again;
5. In the event that a user becomes unwilling or unable to pay the
rent (including by dying, etc.), permit him (or his estate, etc.) to
sell the improvements and transfer or sublet the land, with the new
user responsible for paying the land rent under the terms of the
existing lease;
6. If the current user is unable to find a new user willing to pay
him for the existing improvements and assume his lease obligations,
place the land and improvements on the market for lease bids again;
when the high bidder is identified, the land authority should
dispossess the current user only after a reasonable grace period (say
three months), pay him the depreciated value of the improvements less
any loss of site value his use of the site may have caused, and
transfer the land to the new user.
7. Provide a universal, flat, per capita personal land rent exemption
equivalent to about 20% of per capita land rent revenues, applicable
to any land the recipient uses for his own work or residence, whether
the recipient is the direct landholder or a sublet tenant.
Where private landowning is an accepted institution and its abolition
not politically feasible, it also usually accounts for the bulk of the
monetary (debt money) system and thus of the banking and financial
structure. Great care must be taken not to trigger a monetary
contraction and consequent financial panic and economic depression by
recovering too much land rent too quickly, especially in jurisdictions
that have no authority to reform the financial, banking, or monetary
systems concurrently with land reform. In addition, political
resistance from landowners and others sympathetic to their interests
will be minimized if losses of their asset value can be kept modest
and gradual. Removing a large fraction of land value suddenly through
taxation alone will provoke much more resistance than removing the
same amount gradually and intermittently, through a variety of means,
over the course of several years.
Political prudence requires great sensitivity to the interests --
real and perceived -- of the often large numbers of small landowners.
Evil on the scale of landowner privilege cannot persist in a democracy
without co-opting its victims. The inherent contradictions of being
co-opted mean that co-opted victims are often highly irrational about
their situations, and will typically defend their oppressors with
ferocious loyalty in order to avoid knowing facts that imply both a
practical necessity and a moral obligation to resist their oppression
by force (a kind of Stockholm Syndrome?).
Therefore, subtler, less direct implementation strategies are called
for -- strategies that will effectively wean both small landholders
and financial institutions off land rent and land value increases
before any attempt is made to substitute land rent recovery for unjust
and economically destructive taxes on production. It is absolutely
crucial to remove as much of the speculative premium as possible from
land values BEFORE implementing a program of LVT rate increases, in
order to minimize the probability of a price crash and credit
contraction. The key is to first make landowning less profitable by
other means:
1. Increase the property tax rate, but give a flat, uniform, per
capita exemption, applicable to both owners and tenants, taking care
to ensure that the great majority of small landowners who own only
their own residences end up with lower net property tax bills. Make
the change revenue neutral. This measure will substantially increase
the tax cost of, and thus discourage, holding land out of use,
releasing more land for use, thus reducing land prices which will
again discourage speculation. Making the exemption available equally
to renters and owners is easier to defend politically, and will remove
some of the small holders' financial incentive to own rather than
rent. It is hard for people to resent a reduction in their property
value that results from a reduction in their net property taxes.
2. Shift the property tax off improvements and onto land. This can
and should be done fairly quickly, but the timing will depend to some
extent on election cycles. In jurisdictions where there is a ceiling
on residential rent increases, the tax shift should match the rent
increase ceiling: if tenants can be required to pay increases at that
rate to keep their homes, why not owners? And of course most owners,
having significant improvement value, will experience smaller property
tax increases than the ceiling rent increase for tenants. Where there
is no rent increase ceiling, completing the tax shift over ten years
on most properties is a reasonable goal, as long as individual
homeowners are protected by a real tax increase ceiling of about
double the long-term average real land appreciation rate. Before
implementing this tax shift, care should be taken to ensure that
landlords cannot spitefully increase rents in response, as a stratagem
to foment tenant opposition to the shift. This can be deterred by
increasing the supply of vacant housing. Planning permissions for
densified residential development should be expedited at least a year
before the tax shift is begun (minimizing planning delays is a good
idea in any case). A residential vacancy rate increase of 1%-2% during
the tax shift is a reasonable target -- although in the few places
where vacancy rates are already over 5%, an increase in vacancies to
accompany the tax shift is probably neither needed nor desirable.
3. To discourage speculation and reduce expectations of land value
appreciation while providing fiscal capacity to reduce taxation of
improvements and economic activity, local governments should aim to
recover effectively all the land value increments resulting from their
densifications of designated use. A simple, efficient, and politically
palatable way to do this is simply to stop rezoning privately owned
land and giving the resulting value increments away to the private
landowners. Instead, local governments should buy up low-density land
(especially land within easy walking distance -- 500m, say -- of
public transit stations) at the current market price, greatly increase
the density of the designated use, and then either sell the land back
into the market or lease it to users while retaining it in public
ownership (see above for guidelines on leasing public lands).
Assembly of small parcels to facilitate high-density development can
also greatly increase the total land value recovered by this method. A
reasonable rule of thumb would be to retain half the land thus
redesignated and sell the other half to finance additional purchases
and redesignations. Taking advantage of the positive feedback of such
a system, astute local governments could quickly put themselves in a
position to recover almost all the rent of hundreds of acres of prime
high-density commercial and residential land, without expropriating
any land or increasing anyone's property taxes. The resulting
development boom would also help create economic conditions favorable
to the subsequent re-election of the land reforming administration,
including a mandate for more ambitious reforms.
4. Where feasible, legal frameworks should be amended to make it at
least as difficult and time consuming for mortgage lenders to
dispossess delinquent debtors as it is for governments to dispossess
delinquent residential taxpayers. This will discourage mortgage
lending, thus reducing speculative price premiums and financial
institutions' reliance on land rent. Numerous other legal and fiscal
reforms to deter mortgage lending are also possible.
5. Ensure that valuations are kept current and accurate. All real
estate sales data should be incorporated into a computer model of site
values, all site values and property tax assessments updated annually,
and all relevant information made freely available to the public.
6. Property tax rate differentials for different types of owners,
properties and uses should be gradually reduced and then eliminated.
Likewise other abatements. The only property tax abatement should be
the flat, uniform, universal personal property tax exemption, equal to
about 20% of per capita property tax revenues. As that may not be
sufficient to secure the homes of the politically sensitive elderly
widows, local jurisdictions should also provide a low-cost consulting
service to help those who find themselves without the means to pay
their land taxes arive at suitable solutions. In addition to seeking
accommodation more suited to the applicants' needs and means, such
solutions might include reverse mortgages, lease-back sales,
liquidation of other assets (especially real estate, of course),
taking in tenants or boarders, renting out parking, storage or garden
space, etc.
These measures should reduce land values, but also increase total
improvement value by stimulating construction and renovation. It is
politically prudent not to reduce land values faster than improvement
value is added by the increase in construction, and also to ensure
that at least in the early stages of land rent recovery, net property
tax liabilities for the great majority of taxpayers increase more
slowly than the historical average rate of increase -- or even
decline. Make sure this sort of information is widely disseminated.
Few policies are more politically salable than tax reductions.
Only when the above measures have been in place for a few years will
it be prudent to begin a systematic, ambitious program of replacing
economically destructive taxes by increased land rent recovery. Care
should be taken to ensure that the great majority of taxpayers
experience a reduction in net taxes, and to prove and publicize this
fact widely and often. Because property tax (and LVT) liabilities are
associated with ownership of an asset while other tax liabilities
typically are not, there is an illusory loss of asset value (personal
"wealth") associated with increased LVT, in addition to the
tax liability. This illusion must be dispelled with extreme prejudice
at every opportunity. To illustrate the problem as simply as possible,
assume a society where $1G is raised in sales tax each year, there are
no other taxes, and total land value is $20G at a discount rate of 5%.
Shifting the tax burden entirely to land still raises the same $1G in
tax revenue, but now there is no land value at all, so $20G in asset
value has disappeared! LVT thus seems to impose an immense loss of "wealth"
on society in addition to the taxes people pay. This phenomenon is an
artifact of how asset value is determined, and the fact that because
people cannot be owned, the future tax liabilities associated with
their actions rather than with anything they own do not show up as a
reduction in the value of any asset. If putatively Georgist
organizations were actually interested in promoting LVT, they would
support and publish research, books, etc. explaining this trade-off
between the value of land and the value of people's future actions.
It's one thing to be told, "Your total tax bill will decline by
$10K/yr, but the value of your land will decline by $100K," and
quite another to be told, "The value of your land will decline by
$100K, but the value of your future will increase by $200K.")
There is no doubt that reducing the value of people's assets is always
going to provoke significant resistance, especially from those who
have -- and thus lose -- the lion's share of such assets. It is
therefore important to shift the burden of taxation further off
production and onto land rent only when taxation of improvement value
has been eliminated and other methods of recovering land rent have
been implemented, and not to shift the burden so quickly that land
values undergo a sudden and significant decline.
Fortunately, because land rent recovery is so economically
stimulative, land values may well rise in response to increased land
taxation, at least until the land value tax rate is comparable to the
growth rate. So resistance to greater recovery of land rent is more
likely to be provoked by large percentage increases in tax amounts
than by losses of asset value. It will therefore be prudent to keep
year-on-year increases in tax amounts modest where possible,
especially in a low-inflation environment. Sudden, large increases in
tax liabilities are virtually guaranteed to provoke intense
resistance. That is another reason it is better to densify the
designated uses only of publicly owned land, not private land.
Redesignation of private land results in large land value increases
that must then in fairness be taxed. The fact that much more value has
been given to the owner than is being recovered by the tax will
reliably be ignored by the media.
One can derive a serviceable formula for LVT rate increases to
balance the conflicting goals of shifting the burden of taxation onto
land rent as quickly and smoothly as possible and not provoking
financial disruptions or taxpayer and voter resistance. The most
important factor to keep in mind is that land tax rate increases must
exceed the economic growth rate, or the tax burden will not be shifted
onto -- and may even shift OFF -- land rent. Secondly, the tolerable
increase in tax rate will be not much more than the growth rate,
because larger increases will begin to trigger disruptively rapid
declines in land value. The third factor is that tolerable rate
increases will be roughly proportional to the current tax rate, but
very low rates imply a very small tax amount, and correspondingly less
resistance to a given percentage increase -- taxpayers will not resent
an increase of $100 on a $200 tax as much as an increase of $1000 on a
$5000 tax. The fourth factor is that low LVT rates should be increased
more rapidly than high ones to reduce problems associated with widely
disparate rates.
Taking all these factors into account, a simple, reasonable
compromise formula for calculating the next year's LVT rate (r2),
given a current tax rate of r1 and previous year's growth rate g, all
expressed as fractions, might be:
r2 = r1 (1 + r1 + g) + 0.001
Application of this formula will typically yield annual percentage
increases in the LVT rate in the low double digits: a tolerable pace
of increase that is unlikely to depress land values much but will
nevertheless build up quickly as r and g rise, producing a doubled
rate in 4-5 years. The announced intention of the rate increases
should be to stabilize nominal land prices by eliminating speculative
premiums and to reduce and eliminate unfair and economically damaging
taxes. Should land prices increase despite the tax rate increases,
increase the tax rate by another mil. Should land prices decline, it
should be taken to indicate that speculators are leaving the market as
intended, prices are more accurately reflecting true value, and a
modest reduction in the planned rate increase can be made. Only in the
case of a precipitous decline in prices should the rate increase be
reduced to less than the GDP growth rate. It is absolutely crucial to
stick with a systematic plan for rate increases, and not to adjust the
rates up or down to match a budget projection. If a revenue surplus is
obtained, buy up suitable low-density land for redesignation and rent
recovery, with the stated aim of using the additional revenue to
further reduce unfair and economically damaging taxes.
|