The Fabian Society organised a policy Dragon's Den earlier today. I suggested scrapping the 50p rate of tax to pay for a land tax.
The Fabian Society organised a policy Dragon’s Den earlier today under the title ‘Change or No Change: What do we ditch from New Labour‘. Since all the other speakers had argued for change, I suggested “No change with a purpose”.
My argument – which was somewhat cobbled together due to stepping in at the last minute – was that the Labour party should retain the post-1992 orthodoxy on tax by scrapping the 50p rate. But that it should do so only in order to introduce a land tax.
The inequalities in wealth in the UK far outstrip inequalities in income. As the Political Climate blog points out, “recent data from the ONS show that the top 10% of households own more wealth than the rest put together”. Meanwhile, land – which is to save the least hard to move – is concentrated in an even more extraordinary way: 0.3 per cent of Britain’s population owns 69 per cent of its land. As economist Philippe Legrain argued in an article of Prospect, a land tax is the “only efficient and fair way to bring Britain’s finances back into line”.
My back of the envelope calculation (open I’m sure to challenge) suggests that you could raise £10 billion in tax revenue from an average levy of around £400 per hectare (2.5 acres). The rate would, of course, have to be graduated in order to tax urban land at a higher level than farm land.
In return, the Government could afford to cut the 50p rate and take a penny off the base rate of income tax with billions left over for deficit reduction or public spending. The Treasury estimated that the 50p rate would bring in around £2 billion but the IFS expressed concern last year that it could encourage tax avoidance. In any case, the 50p rate will do little to address income inequality. A focus on a living wage at the bottom and financial sector remuneration at the top are a far better means.
The three panelists – pollster Deborah Mattinson, journalist David Aaronovitch, and Tottenham MP David Lammy – supported the idea but, as Mattinson said, “the devil’s in the detail”. To test the popularity, she asked how a middle-income family with a combined income of £40,000 and a house in Surrey would fare. With a chance to do some proper number crunching, I can report that they would gain £270 from the income tax reduction but lose £160 on an acre of land – a net gain of £110.
There are clearly lots of details that would need fleshing out and this is very much a ‘starter for 10’. But it must make sense to consider a shift from taxing income to taxing unearned income. In the words of David Lammy: “it’s an idea whose time has come”.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
85 Responses to “Scrap 50p to introduce a land tax”
John Lees
Yes lets all share out the land so we can have a little plot each to provide subsistance agriculture. No need for farmers to own land we can all do it.
John Lees
Anyway why make extra taxs for land and not other assets? Land only produces an average return of 2.5% so it is hardly a great money spinner. Taxing it in addition to other taxes would wipe out all income and make agriculture uneconomic. You are bonkers.
If you know your Georgian economics the reason for a land tax was to force lanowners to sell land for development and had the undeveloped mass of America in mind. More logic would be a ‘planning gain supplement’ but labour decided this was to complex because it is.
John Lees
£400 is way over the average income for a hectare!!!!!
Oisin
RT @davidwearing: 10% of households own more wealth than the rest put together, and 0.3% of UK population owns 69% of its land http://bit.ly/blK6ix
John Lees
Actually I think your picture of Chatsworth is deceptive. This tax could not and would not be paid by farmers/landowners it would be paid by the middle class homeowners. Agricultural land does not produce an income worthy of taxing, (unless you are just wishing to do a Zimbabwe and decide farmers should not own land) so it would fall on urban land. If you tax urban land it would either be passed on in rent or directly. Either way people have to realise there is not ‘free’ pot of money, from landowners or others to solve the public deficit.