What is a land value tax and how would it work?

What is a land value tax?

A land value tax is an annual levy paid on the value of the land upon which a property – or no property – sits, rather than a tax on the property itself. The basic idea is that land gets its value from location, rather than the calibre of the development that sits on it. And what gives a location value is what is going on around it. Is it close to the centre of a city? Is it in an area with great transport links, good schools, beautiful parks, hospitals and so on? Generations of taxpayers paid for all that civic infrastructure and a land value tax is a fair and efficient way of taxing what economists have called the “unearned betterment” part of the value of a property – that is, the rise in value that has nothing to do with the owner's efforts and everything to do with the state and community.

Is a land value tax a new idea?

Not at all. Land value taxes have their roots in the ancient principle that people enclosing common land for agricultural use had a duty to share some of the resulting crops. In Anglo-Saxon England, the unit of land measurement called the hide (around 120 acres) was used to assess people's liabilities and obligations for such things as the maintenance and repair of bridges, fortifications and manpower for the army. A thousand years later, in The Wealth of Nations (Book V, chapter 2), Adam Smith argued in favour of a land tax on the grounds that it would fall on the owner of the land and not harm other economic activity. “Nothing could be more reasonable,” he concluded. David Ricardo, too, was a strong advocate. More recently, the most famous proponent of a land value tax was the late 19th-century US journalist and free-trade campaigner Henry George. Winston Churchill was a big fan, too.

Why is a land value tax so popular?

It's one of those interesting ideas (such as universal basic income or congestion pricing) that attracts support from a strikingly broad range of voices. Left-wingers are attracted to land value taxes because they capture unearned rents and reduce inequality from land ownership. Free-market liberals are keen because land value taxes are seen as highly efficient and tax a fixed resource without discouraging work or investment. The key point in favour is that such a tax “allows us to raise more money from the unproductive rich without disincentivising the productive rich”, says David Goodhart on Substack. Andy Burnham, during his first bid for the Labour leadership in 2010, backed the policy as “aspirational socialism”. Milton Friedman – guru of the “neoliberalism” so disdained by the new PM – also supported it as the “least bad tax”.

Try 6 free issues of MoneyWeek today

Get unparalleled financial insight, analysis and expert opinion you can profit from.

Start your trial

Sign up for MoneyWeek’s free twice-daily newsletter.

Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.

Join more than 165,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with latest financial news, insights and expert analysis to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.

Sign up

Why did Milton Friedman call it the 'least bad tax'?

Because if states must tax – and they must – then it's best that they do as little damage as possible to incentives that promote growth and enterprise. Income taxes disincentivise employment. Taxes on profits make businesses invest and trade less. But the supply of land is fixed: no tax increase will result in there being less of it. And “even the most tax-shy landlords cannot take their acres offshore or dodge the tax with legal jiggery-pokery”, says Edward Lucas in The Times. Moreover, a land value tax “stimulates growth by penalising inactivity. Landlords pay the tax anyway, so they had better make use of their land, or sell it, dropping the price if necessary” – and selling to more productive owners. Land value tax, in other words, helps tackle “grey belt” decay and discourages land hoarding and speculation, smoothing out booms and busts.

How high should the land value tax be?

Another proponent is Dan Neidle, the City lawyer turned tax reform campaigner. He supports scrapping stamp duty (which harms growth and labour flexibility by discouraging people from moving house); council tax (out of date, unfair and under-taxes the very rich); and business rates (arbitrary, stifle growth and stoke perverse incentives). To replace the £100 billion these three dreadfully designed property taxes bring in, Neidle's Tax Policy Associates think tank proposes a land value tax set at around 1.3%. Other groups have proposed models at between 0.48% and 1%. Stamp duty and council tax between them account for roughly £57 billion. At the 1.3% rate, at least 63% of people would be better off immediately (compared with council-tax payments), and in the long run the boost to the economy would make it a win-win for all.

What would a land value tax mean for homeowners?

In the short run, millions of homeowners in southern England would be looking at gigantic new annual tax bills. And that's not the only reason why land value taxes are a tough sell, politically. Initial implementation is tough, since the scope for disputes and legal challenges against a levy on a hypothetical value is clear. And opponents worry the tax would be unfair on asset-rich but low-income homeowners, especially the elderly. Without some kind of lengthy phasing in, a land value tax would constitute a one-off windfall tax on the current generation of land owners, since once they are introduced, land values would fall to reflect future tax liabilities. And letting cash-poor pensioners pay the land value tax from their estates risks turning it into a disguised inheritance tax.

Will Britain get a land value tax?

This week Andy Burnham appeared to back away from a far milder form of tax reform that he espoused as recently as last week – a big rise in the personal allowance to take more low earners out of income tax. So it's highly unlikely he would have the political capital – or mandate – to push through such a radical move this side of a general election. But it may be an idea whose time has come. An early attempt at a land value tax in Britain – under Lloyd George's Liberals – collapsed under the weight of the administrative burden involved and trenchant opposition from landowners. But today's technologies mean the task is not insurmountable, given the political will. Versions of a land value tax have been introduced in jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Singapore and Taiwan. “Burnham has been right about this for 16 years,” says Neidle in The Sunday Times. “The question is whether he's willing to be right today.”

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.