Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Paying for Council services - ongoing saga

How to pay for services provided by local councils has been a bone of contention for years. We used to have Rates, which were a payment based on the annual rental value of each property. They were unpopular because they are the only tax that is paid for directly out of pocket, so people noticed them, unlike Income Tax which is paid by employers, or VAT which comes wrapped up in the bill when you buy things.

Rates were replaced by the poll tax, officially called the Community Charge - which was a fixed charge per individual, but many exemptions had to be made and it proved unworkable. After the poll tax we got Council Tax, which is based roughly on the selling price of the house or flat. It was a quick fix and worked as long as it was low. But inflation and changes in the amount that councils get from the goverment have meant that it is being used to raise more revenue than the system can sustain, with the result that people on low fixed incomes are having to pay more than some of them can afford.

So the government set up a new Committee of Inquiry under Sir Michael Lyons, Professor of Local Government at the University of Birmingham, to study the whole business and receive submissions from interested parties. This took place in 2004 and 2005, but then the government decided to extend the terms of reference to include the actual functions and organisation of local government.

Meanwhile, it appointed three more committees - the Leitch review of skills, the Barker Review of Land Use Planning and the Eddington Transport Study, which have now produced their reports.

The Barker review was originally meant to propose way of making more land available for housing, but it has gone on to cover planning in general. An interim report advocated the introduction of development charges - payment for planning consent to capture the resulting increase in land value. This is much the same policy as failed in 1947, 1967 and 1976, when owners just kept their land off the market pending a change in government and repeal. Presumably this is why it was dropped from the final report.

The Eddington transport study is a weighty document which I ought to study but do not have the time.

And now that the three committees have done their work, the Lyons Inquiry has gone out to another round of consultation in the hope of pulling things together. Unfortuntely, there is a short deadline - presumably under pressure from the government - for submissions by 21 January. It does not give much time considering that decisions made will have to be lived with for the next few decades.

The key issue here is the is the potential role of land value taxation in solving all three of these problems. Transport infrastructure is a key factor in creating and sustaining land values. Planning decisions can result in fortunes being made from the release of latent land value when development is allowed to go ahead. And existing taxes which bear on labour - effectively, payroll taxes, have been a major reason why opportunities for on-the-job training through apprenticeships and the like have almost vanished.

However, the chances that Lyons will recommend land value taxation are slim, and he did, the report would be shelved. There are powerful vested interests who make sure they have got the ear of the civil service. Judging from the replies one receives from government departments on the subject, the vested interests appear to operate on the FUD principle, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.

About the Lyons Inquiry
About Land Value Taxation

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...