Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Tax competition - may the best win

The EU is threatening the UK if it competes by reducing corporate and other taxes. Surely the most dangerous threat would be for the EU to do the same thing?

That would be tax competition, which is damned for being a “race to the bottom”.  Once again, it is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Tax competition must be a good thing? Let the best system win!

The Physiocrats were possibly the first to note that all taxes are ultimately at the expense of land rent. This conclusion also follows from Ricardo’s Law of Rent, which has never been formally refuted. In principle, therefore, all existing taxes could be replaced by a single tax on the annual rental value of land, since as taxes on wages, goods, services and profits are removed, land values rise by roughly the same amount in aggregate. This is confirmed in a general way by observation; where taxes are low, land values are high, in some cases extraordinarily so. Singapore and Hong Kong in particular have exploited this with great success to the point that land values are a major source of public revenue.

Because of the strength of the landowning interest in the UK, this is not going to happen. However, in the not-distant past - as recently as thirty years ago - a substantially higher proportion of public revenue was raised from property taxes than is the case today. This is one of the reasons for the chronic shortage of public funds. There is no reason why income tax could not be reduced to a modest level for high earners for, Corporation Tax and VAT scrapped, vehicle fuel duties replaced by road pricing, and owners of valuable IPR monopolies made to pay a charge more commensurate with their value. The tax cuts would bring about an equivalent increase in land values (commercial and industrial rents and house prices) which would provide a buoyant tax base.

Realistically these changes would have to be brought in over a period of between five and ten years, but they are not impracticable. Amongst the benefits would be
  • Increase in production due to elimination of deadweight losses.
  • Reduction in associated welfare costs to the government.
  • Reduction in administration and compliance costs.
  • Release of some of the most talented people in the country from the tax avoidance industry, so that they could engage in wealth production.
This is a strategy which is available to any government, though not under present EU regulations. If the UK government decided to follow it, the E27 has the options of continuing and suffering from the competition, or following suit, to the benefit of its own people. That is what tax competition means. May the best system win. It is all the people who will benefit.

Kommentarer

Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

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...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

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...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

Beyond electrification

In an earlier post I suggested a core list of lines which ought to be in an electrification programme spread over twenty years of so. This leaves a residue of routes which it is unlikely will ever be electrified. This include for example All lines beyond Glasgow, Stirling and Aberdeen All lines west of Exeter and Swansea All lines west of Chester Shrewsbury - Chester Everything not listed in my previous blog - electrification plans only scratch surface   Some of these routes carry main line services to London and other cities on parts of the network that are already electrified or included in electrification plans. Others are self contained and others carry light traffic - less than a dozen trains a day. The current plan is that main line services will be operated with the hybrid trains on order from Hitachi, but this is a costly, wasteful and ineffective solution. The performance of the trains will be inferior to the present Inter-City 125 trains on non-electrified lines and the ...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer