Στις 03/02/2012 το Economics Blog της εφημερίδας Guardian στη Βρετανία δημοσιεύει την είδηση ότι το IFS (=Institute for Fiscal Studies Ινστιτούτο Οικονομικών/Δημοσιονομικών Μελετών) υποστηρίζει τις προτάσεις του ΟΟΣΑ για μετατόπιση της φορολογίας εισοδημάτων και κερδών στη φορολόγηση εύκολου πλουτισμού και κατανάλωσης.
Πιο συγκεκριμένα το IFS προτείνει την αντικατάσταση φόρων που πλήττουν την προσπάθεια και πρωτοβουλία για ανάπτυξη με έναν φόρο επί των αξιών γαιών ή Γεωφορολόγηση.
Ο γενικός όρος «ακίνητη περιουσία» δημιουργεί προβλήματα διότι συμπεριλαμβάνει και γη και κτίσματα ή καλλιέργειες συγχέοντας ένα οικονομικό στοιχείο στη βάση της παραγωγής (=γη, έδαφος), που είναι εκ φύσεως πεπερασμένο, με στοιχεία που είναι προϊόντα της ανθρώπινης προσπάθειας (=κτίρια, καλλιέργειες, ορυχεία κλπ).
Στη Δύση έχουμε τη μανία να επενδύουμε σε μη-παραγωγικά ακίνητα (δηλ. οικόπεδα στην πόλη κυρίως αλλά και αγροτεμάχια στην ύπαιθρο) για πλουτισμό δίχως προσπάθεια. Απλά, αγοράζεις ένα γεωτεμάχιο σε καλή περιοχή, περιμένεις λίγα χρόνια και μετά το πουλάς με πολύ μεγάλο κέρδος. Τέτοιες επενδύσεις είναι πολύ κερδοφόρες για όσους γνωρίζουν τη κτηματαγορά, αλλά δεν προάγουν καθόλου την πραγματική παραγωγή και ανάπτυξη της οικονομίας. Απεναντίας, λειτουργούν ως τροχοπέδη στην ανάπτυξη.
Γιαυτό ο ΟΟΣΑ και το IFS θέλουν να επιβληθεί ο φόρος επί της αξίας εδαφών και να καταργηθούν άλλοι φόροι. Έτσι τα χρήματα που επενδύονται σε γεωτεμάχια θα διοχετευθούν στην πραγματική παραγωγή (βιομηχανία, εμπόριο, κατασκευές, τουρισμό κλπ) που τώρα δεν θα φορολογείται ή θα φορολογείται όλο και πιο λίγο.
Ακολουθεί το κείμενο από το blog του the Guardian:
IFS backs land value tax
The idea is to cut income and business taxes while introducing a land value tax to end our obsession with property and to encourage paid work
There is a mania for investing in unproductive property as a way to boost living standards. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian
Amid a flurry of microeconomic reform proposals, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has thrown its weight behind OECD proposals for a shift away from income taxes to consumption and wealth taxes.
In particular, the IFS said: “Replacing business rates with a land value tax would remove a damaging bias against property-intensive production.”
The IFS’s recognition of the property problem is welcome.
Across the western world there is a mania for investing in unproductive property as a way to boost living standards. There is a case to be made that property speculation, seen as a bona fide job in some circles that deserves respect, is a way not to do any real work, but let’s leave that to one side.
The last property bubble, which precipitated the financial crash, has entirely failed to diminish the appetite for making gains on property speculation as a substitute for making gains from working.
For 30 years wages have stood still. But no matter, we can speculate on property to increase our income.
This is not the fault of homeowners. Faced with an employer who refuses to pay higher wages, workers have little option than to borrow and what better than a home as the main supporting asset?
Housing equity allows all homebuyers to supplement their incomes either as collateral for a secured loan or, less directly, for an unsecured loan.
There is no tax on the main home or its sale. There is only 100% gain. For higher rate taxpayers, the buy-to-let option is also lightly taxed compared to income tax (40% versus 28% for capital gains tax).
The OECD has proposed cutting income taxes and business taxes across its developed world membership and introducing a land value tax (LVT) to end this obsession with property and encourage paid work.
An LVT would take money out of the property market every year rather than just when transactions occur. Stamp duty could be abolished and inheritance tax as well, especially as the UK has already pushed the threshold so high that middle income groups don’t pay and the rich can avoid it. Council tax would go, along with business rates.
The left has traditionally objected to any reduction in the role played by income tax and corporation tax. A highly redistributive income tax and a big levy on corporates is the way to make the new phenomenon of super-high-salaried staff (relatively unknown 40 years ago) and their capital-owning cousins pay for welfare services, they believe.
Except that a wealth tax is redistributive. As the IFS says, a tax reform can be revenue neutral, if that makes it more politically acceptable, with rich landowners paying the most.
Obviously a radical tax change is probably more politically unacceptable in a downturn than it is in a boom, but then there is never a good time.
While the holy grail of LVT supporters is to abolish all other taxes, the OECD merely recommends a shift in emphasis. The shift would allow some simplification, though simplification is not the point. It is to make work pay without sacrificing the welfare state.
The bankruptcy of the Liberal Democrat plan to raise the personal allowance threshold to £10,000 is that it seeks to impose a higher burden on middle income earners within the same tax structure. If their mansion tax illustrates a desire to tax wealth, like the IFS, they should switch to an LVT. Almost anyone with a mansion can void the current charges on its sale: a higher tax makes no difference. An LVT is unavoidable.
