Land and Public Finance
As a young person, I couldn't imagine a drearier topic
than public finance. But I've come to realize that how we
finance our public spending is of vital importance. If we
tax the wrong things, we throw a wet blanket on
our economy and we steal from those who work the fruits
of their labor. Equally important, if we fail to
tax the right things, we allow some of us to enrich
themselves unjustly at the expense of others.
A significant portion of our extremely skewed
distribution of income and our even more skewed
distribution of wealth can be attributed to these two
failures.
And yet, when Americans discuss tax "reform," it is
usually either (a) a discussion of income tax brackets or
(b) a discussion of so-called "double taxation."
Occasionally it veers into a suggestion that the poor
aren't paying their "fair share."
There has been talk about budgets being moral
documents. Usually the reference is to the
spending side of the budget,
but it is equally true of the
revenue side of the budget:
there are things we shouldn't tax at all, or should only
tax when we've already taxed those things that
should be taxed, and, conversely, there are
things that we must tax, if we want a just society. But
few of our college economics curricula even mention
this.
Nic Tideman: Using Tax Policy to
Promote Urban Growth
The efficiency that is entailed in using the rent
of land to finance public activities applies to certain
other sources of public revenue as well:
1. Charges on any publicly granted privileges,
such as the exclusive right to use a portion of the
frequency spectrum for radio and TV broadcasts.
2. Payments for extractions of natural
resources. Such payments should be set at levels that
yield the greatest possible revenue of the resources,
in present value terms.
3. Taxes on pollution. Every individual or
enterprise that pollutes the air, water or ground
should be required to pay the estimated cost of the
pollution it generates. The effect of pollution on the
rental value of surrounding land is one possible
measure of its cost.
4. Taxes on any other activities that reduce
the rental value of surrounding land.
5. Taxes on activities such as driving or
parking in crowded streets, where one person's
activities reduce opportunities for others. The
administration of such charges may be so expensive that
it is not worth implementing them, but if the
administration can be handled sufficiently cheaply,
these charges are efficient to the extent that they
only charge people for costs imposed on
others.
6. Taxes on activities, such as the
consumption of alcohol, which impose costs on others
(e.g., higher traffic fatalities).
7. Charges for local public services, such as
water, electricity, sewer connections, etc. It is not
generally desirable to make every service completely
self-financing. Rather, what is desirable is that each
user be required to pay the marginal cost of the
service he receives. Extensions of service networks are
efficient when they increase publicly collected land
rents by enough to cover the costs not covered by user
charges.
8. A self-assessed tax on permanent
improvements to land, at a very low rate (perhaps 1/10
of 1% per year). With a self-assessed tax, each
possessor of land names a price at which he would be
willing to part with the land he possesses (and any
immovable improvements). He pays a tax proportional to
the value he names, and anyone who wishes to may take
over possession at that price. The value of such a tax
is that it makes it much easier to assemble land for
redevelopment, and to identify appropriate compensation
when land is taken for public purposes.
All of the above taxes are
positively beneficial and should be collected even if the
revenue is not needed for public purposes. Any excess can
be returned to the population on an equal per capita
basis. If these attractive sources of revenue do
not suffice to finance necessary public expenditures,
then the least damaging additional tax would probably be
a "poll tax," a uniform charge on all residents. If some
residents are regarded to be incapable of paying such a
tax, then the next most efficient tax is a proportional
tax on income up to some specified amount. Then there is
no disincentive effect for all persons who reach the tax
limit. The next most efficient tax is a proportional tax
on all income.
It is important not to tax the
profits of corporations. Capital moves from where
it is taxed to where it is not, until the same rate of
return is earned everywhere. If the city refrains from
taxing corporations they will invest
more...
Read the whole
article
Nic Tideman:
Land Taxation and Efficient Land Speculation
The optimal timing of development is an important
allocative function that can be either enhanced or
degraded by the impact of land taxes on land speculation.
This paper discusses four types of taxes on land:
- taxes on the rental value of land,
- taxes on the sale value of land,
- taxes on realized income from land, and
- taxes on realized gains from the sale of land.
All four taxes reduce incentives for speculation in
land, which is generally beneficial. The third and fourth
produce distortions with respect to incentives to develop
land, while the first and second do not. All four taxes
have some beneficial effect of mitigating imperfections
in capital markets. All permit reduction or elimination
of taxes with significant dead-weight losses, such as
those on improvements. ...
read the whole article
|
To share this page with a friend:
right click, choose "send," and add your
comments.
|
|
Red links have not been
visited; .
Green links are pages you've seen
|
Essential Documents pertinent
to this theme:
|
|