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

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

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.
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

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...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer