Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

How to measure the rental value of land

Over the past few years the idea seems to have grown up amongst supporters of land value taxation that it is impossible to determine the rental value of land. It has apparently come from the USA. They claim that it is irrelevant how the valuation list is done, but that it is too difficult or politically problematic to measure rental values.

To assess the rent of land from capital values by the residual method on a developed site, in principle this is the process.

1. deduct the value of the structures on the site.
2. deduct hope value.
3 decapitalise this value using an agreed figure of probably around 5%.
4 add in all property taxes actually being paid at the time of valuation.

To assess from rental values of a developed site the process is.

1 deduct the decapitalised value of the structures.
2 add in all property taxes actually being paid at the time of valuation.

Site values as determined by a variety of methods are then "smoothed". The first valuation is obviously the most difficult. After that the process is iterative. But with rental values as the basis of the tax, as existing taxes come off, yields will rise even at a fixed rate of LVT. Essentially, the whole exercise is a tax shift. Vic Blundell, an expert on the subject in the immediate post-war period, compared it to rearranging the load on a pack horse. If the load is tied to its feet the beast cannot move. If it is put on its back then it can carry the load all day long.

Owing to the way LVT has been promoted and applied, it seems as if too many of its advocates are proposing capital valuation and assuming that this deviation from the original concept is just a detail and that people who make an issue of it are niggling. They are not. It is critical for the long term success of LVT.

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 Zombie Train that refuses to die

The Guardian has published a couple more articles against HS2, one by specialist rail commentator Christian Wolmar, and another today by journalist Simon Jenkins. The main arguments in favour will doubtless be wheeled out by the commentators: the need for capacity and the disruption caused by upgrading existing routes. HST itself will severely disrupt services to Euston during the construction period. Capacity can be increased at a fraction of the cost by a variety of measures, provided that it is accepted that the additional traffic will run at existing speeds. It is not generally known that the Midland main line is, or was, four track all the way from London to Trent Junction, between Nottingham and Derby. This is because the additional tracks are separate, having been added for coal trains which trundled down to Brent sidings, on the edge of London, from a collection point at Toton in Nottinghamshire, where the Midland Railway build a huge marshalling yard. Beyond Derby, the main l...

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...