Inheritance Tax

Today's Guardian carries a nice enough piece by Simon Jenkins in praise of devolution and localizing taxation, in particular through "ability to pay" local income tax. Clearly Daahling has yesterday set the scene for another big spat about Council Tax as it seems that the local government settlement is going to leave little option but for local authorities to raise the hated tax by more than they otherwise would.

Of course I think Jenkins, and the Lib Dems, are wrong on LIT - and are certainly wrong on removing all forms of property tax - but we in ALTER are prepared to accept LIT I think now on the proviso that we replace some other tax with a land tax at a national level (preferably a whopper like income tax for me!). Anyway - here's a taste of the Jenkins article (of course he's also wrong that it was a Tory script Daahling was cribbing from but don't let that get in the way of an otherwise good article!):

It was a Tory tax proposal that rewrote Darling's script:

The way forward can only be the European way, to devolve a major slice of spending on public services back to where it was before the mid-1980s, to local authorities. There it must be covered by some element of ability to pay - as bravely proposed by the Liberal Democrats. Darling cannot go on financing central programmes with above-inflation rises in a partly regressive property tax. There is no alternative, one day, to some form of local income tax. Council tax could be cut by a quarter with roughly one pence on income tax. Scotland is even now contemplating such a proposal. Yet ask Brown or Cameron for a view on such fiscal devolution, and they will look as if you wanted to murder their cat.

Giving taxpayers some scope to determine the level and quality of their public services is the only way to sustain future rises in public expenditure. That scope can come only through the local ballot, over health, police, education or whatever. Local income-related taxes exist in almost every country in Europe. They are intelligent taxation. Only in Britain do they scare party leaders witless.

ConservativeHome on Sunday included this little piece of hubris. Now, it is true that, somewhat inexplicably to me, Gideon's announcement about raising the Inheritance Tax threshold, something that everyone seems to acknowledge affects just 6% of estates (about 30,000 families each year) currently, seems to have done them a lot of favours, positioning them in the public perception at least as a tax cutting party.

But it would be quite wrong on a number of levels to say that they are lowering taxes:

• First, they are simply shifting the burden. Sure, it is shifting from a few relatively wealthy households (with average house prices once again below £200k having a housing asset over £350k is still in the top quintile nationwide) who can and generally do vote to a very tiny number of households who generally can't and don't vote. But shifting, rather than cutting, it undeniably is.
• Second, even if it were not the "revenue neutral" shift (after all they have also promised to stick to Labour's spending plans so need the money from somewhere) it would amount to a tax cut of just 0.88% of the government tax take (that's central government by the way - i.e. excluding local taxes). If a party that has regularly claimed to be managerially superior and capable of saving government wastage cannot "lose" less than a measly one per cent of its revenue in efficiency savings, they're clearly not the competent financial managers they would have us believe!

It astonishes me that a measure that would be felt my fewer than 30,000 families per year can be spun as some major step forward in tax shifting, let alone tax cutting. Compared to the Lib Dem proposals - abolishing the Council Tax (the tax most respondents found unfair in recent polling by the Tax Payers' Alliance) would be immediately felt by virtually all households; reducing national Income Tax by four pence in the pound would be felt by every individual earning anything more than the personal allowance, the Tory changes to IHT and Stamp Duty on homes, are small fry - mere plankton in fact.

But both parties of course propose changes that are "revenue neutral". Nobody seems to be advocating real tax cuts. And maybe when the population wakes up to this fact they will see through the spin and reject those attempting to hood-wink them into believing they will somehow be much better off. On balance of course, the Lib Dem proposals would leave far more people better off, if they tread lightly on the resources of the planet, for most of our tax cuts are to be funded by increases in taxation for environmentally damaging behaviour and life-styles.

Vince Cable - the best prospective Chancellor by far?

So why is it not us that have made eleven percentage point gains in the polls? For I have to say, compared with either Gideon, Gordon, Balls or Darling I find Vince Cable the most palpably honest and certainly best briefed potential Chancellor of the Exchequer in mainstream politics right now. Might I suggest that it is a lack of clarity, especially about who gains and who loses under our proposals. This was most obviously apparent when Charles Kennedy famously fluffed his interview on Local Income Tax during the 2005 General Election campaign.

Our Green Taxes and local tax reform ideas have been criticized by others:

• as affecting the annual family holiday (wrong - they do however aim to penalize those very lucky tiny few who have the time, lack of domestic commitments and financial wherewithal to take weekend breaks abroad every month or two - where their flight costs pale into insignificance compared with hotel and entertainment costs)
• to hit the poorest households' motorists (wrong again - the 33% poorest households by and large still do not even have access to a private car and would in fact be likely to benefit from the resultant investment and better efficiency in public transport)
• or to greatly increase the income tax of those two young nurses of CK's fluffed interview (still wrong - the four pence in the pound reduction in national income tax is intended to more than cover the Local Income Tax and they won't be paying Council Tax on top).

So why can't we get that across to people? It's a far more compelling package than the Tories and their tax cuts for the rich - which is jam tomorrow for even those who might benefit and jam never for most of us.

Now, you would not expect me to comment on tax policy without mentioning my pet pair of elephants - Land Value Tax and Citizens' Income . I maintain that by adopting the "Single Tax" of Henry George - that is taxing the unimproved value of all land as a replacement for (most*) Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Corporation Tax, and, if Europe were to agree, Value Added Taxes and returning most of even that Land Value Tax to the people to spend in the form of "an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to each individual as a right of citizenship" (the description used by the Citizens' Income Trust) would so transform our economy and environment that government expenditure could be reduced to just a fraction of the proportion of the national income it is today.

Couple this with monetary reform that would see a national credit authority, free of government and politicians' interference, creating just the right amount of new currency needed by the economy to account for each year's growth in the economy instead of privatised debt creation doing the same job with a lot less stability as recent weeks in the financial markets have shown, we would have virtually no need for taxation at all (except perhaps as a behaviour modifying mechanism)

Pie in the sky? Well, it may be. But surely that sort of promise is worth investigating at the highest level. We assume the way we currently operate - coercive taxation and state capitalism - is the only one possible. It is true that, as the joke goes, in order to get to that fiscal nirvana one would not start from where we are, but the potential attractions are so enormous that we ignore them at our peril. Land Value Tax has some heavy-weight supporters historically - Adam Smith, J S Mill, Winston Churchill, Lloyd George, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Milton Friedman and others cannot all have been wrong, surely?

I stumbled across this group of bloggers the other day called the "Low Tax Coalition" .  I considered applying to join their number, but so far as I can see not one of them even dares to imagine the sort of low/no tax economy I set out above.

*I say "most" Income Taxes (and possibly CGT too) because I am becoming more convinced that some of these taxes on (some of) the highest earners may be necessary in the short to medium term to recoup the "embodied advantage" they have gained under the current less fair system. For an example of what I mean, look at the current Sainsbury take-over where the shareholders are about to crystalize property values worth up to around £10bn effectively valuing the grocery business at nothing despite its obvious earnings history and potential.

Property "guru" (well I say guru as I understand she participates in one of those DIY developer programs on a TV channel I don't receive, probably thankfully) Lucy Alexander reflects in the Times today on some of the potential effects of the Tory plans to try to take most family homes out of Inheritance Tax by lifting the threshold to £1m:

The property boom under Labour has created a generation of accidental property millionaires, many of whom are forced in later life to sell their homes to avoid imposing a punitive inheritance tax burden on their children.

Under the Tory proposals, the inheritance tax threshold would be raised from £300,000 to £1 million, knocking £280,000 (40 per cent of £700,000) off the tax bill for £1 million-plus homeowners. Will these now choose not to sell and instead, in time-honoured fashion, leave their homes to their children when they die?

Bless 'em. These poor APMs ("accidental property millionaires") are clearly now left in a dilemma few of the rest of us can actually comprehend. But the solution is all in the name...ACCIDENTAL property millionaires. Of course no doubt Ms Alexander, echoing Mlles Beeny and Allsopp, would say it is all down to the skill of the purchaser some years, perhaps decades, earlier that they had spotted an "up and coming neighbourhood" and bought into it when it was good value and have just sat back and enjoyed their "investment".

"Ricardo's Law:
House Prices and the
Great Tax Clawback Scam"
(Fred Harrison)

Well of course as property professionals they have to sell the dream, and Mandy Rice-Davies Applies; they would say that wouldn't they? But in reality it's absolute rubbish. When one spots an "up and coming neighbourhood", if one has been so assiduous in looking for a home, it's up and coming because other people want it, because there is public and private investment going into the local infrastructure and environment. It's yours and my tax money often enough that has been ploughed into an area and filters out like gold in a panning tray in the form of increased property values - as we shall perhaps one day see again when all the property around new Crossrail access points shoots up in value as a result of our billions of public investment.

Now I have said many times before I have no problem with the handing down of wealth from one generation to another. I do not share the notion of J S Mill that wealth ought to revert to the state upon death. If one has offspring, one works for them as much as for oneself. But what one passes on to them on one's death ought to be honestly and fairly gained. Not the result of hoarding what others need as a particular location gains in popularity and value because of the commercial and public economic activity that builds up around it.

If we taxed the land properly, the house buyer would perhaps be paying less than half what they have to today for their home, leaving them the opportunity to save their spare money in truly productive financial assets to leave to their heirs instead of the accumulation of other people's tax and economic activity and need for a place convenient for their work or their children's schooling or their college campus in the case of Oxford.

And how on earth are the non-Tory media and the other political parties letting the Tories get away with this scam of a tax cut for the tiny minority as if it's some beneficent gesture of redistribution? It's quite the opposite - the enclosure of the returns to public, commercial and community investment. Protectionism for the already privileged.

James Graham has done the short version of the Georgist objections to Conservative Plans over Stamp Duty and Inheritance Tax and, whilst I have blogged in the past about why we should indeed abolish IHT completely, I spotted this yesterday on "The First Post" which I think highlights a common confusion about IHT and, in particular, "real property" - ie your home...

Arguments for and against inheritance tax:

ARGUMENTS FOR (abolition/reform):

Inheritance tax no longer fulfils its original intention. Initially designed to raise money from the very wealthy, it now penalises more and more members of the middle classes. The very wealthy, however, can often afford financial guidance and find ways to avoid having to pay.

If that's what people are basing the inherent unfairness of IHT upon then I think they are wrong. Whilst one cannot argue with the second sentence (and the LVT solution would solve that fairly) I am not at all sure from the history of the various Estate Duty, Capital Transfer Tax and then Inheritance Tax regimes leading up to now that the tax was in fact "initially designed to raise money from the very wealthy".

In 1857 tax was due on estates above £20, though apparently rarely collected unless the estate was over £1,400. Using the RPI these two sums equate to just £1,200 and c£90,000 in 2006 prices, or £33,000 and £857,000 using average earnings indices. No, given the discussions around the various ways of levying land taxes in the People's Budget of 1909, I believe that death duties were intended to capture land value increases in a way that would not impact on the owner while they were alive.

It just so happens that around the turn of the 20th century, most land was in the hands of the "very wealthy" - landlords and large real estate holdings. Now, whilst it is much more widely spread, the increase in land values, seen especially in the past decade, are still a problem which the lifting of IHT thresholds will not address, in fact as James Graham points out, will exacerbate.

One other of the arguments for abolition in the First Post article goes as follows:

In taking a share of money from people who have already contributed income and capital gains taxes, inheritance tax is a form of double taxation.

This too is to misunderstand the nature of property price rises, where the increase in values comes from and so on. The property owner has not paid tax on the capital gains in their first home at least. Nor have they paid income tax on that increase. They may (but not necessarily I suppose) have paid income tax on the money used to buy the property in the first place. Nor have they contributed much, if anything, to the increase in value. That comes about because the location becomes more popular - more people need to have access to that location or ones like it. It is a monopoly profit in a zero sum market. Contrast this with the profit made from healthy economic investments such as equity in companies which only arise because someone, the company, is creating additional wealth.

Yet in attempting to take the family home out of IHT the Tories are doing precisely the opposite of what is fair and equitable. The monopoly "real property" profit the family is allowed to keep, whilst healthy investment assets are more likely to be taxed, if anything is. Of course I do not believe in waiting till someone dies before collecting the land value from the estate. It should be, as Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Winston Churchill suggested the main or only form of taxation. Such would keep house prices down, allow people to save the rest of their income in productive assets instead, and be difficult to avoid, even for "non-doms". Then abolishing IHT would make sense, taking all the other productive capital assets out of what is a pernicious tax.

Much discussion on the TV and in the press overnight about will-he won't-he George Osborne endorsing John Redwood's idea of abolishing inheritance tax. There has been a protracted discussion about this in Lib Dem circles over the last year or so as well.

The irony is though that many of those that want it abolished do so because it is usually the "family home" that pushes an estate into IHT liability. Ironic because of all the possible assets one might have accumulated in one's life, the value of one's property is the most likely to have been "unearned". Many proponents of abolition reckon that because they paid tax on the earnings they used to purchase their house, so any rise in the value of that property ought to be untaxed - that anything else is "double taxation".

The trouble is, you don't earn the rise in your property value. It happens because other people need what you have - a site in an increasingly popular location. A popularity most often created by expenditure on things like infrastructure that make that location better connected. It is monopoly profit.

Most of the other assets you might leave to your descendants - shares and so on - are productive assets that themselves help create wealth. Land values move wealth from those who don't own land, or own low value locations, to those who own better land, more popular sites, in a zero sum market.

So yes, abolish inheritance tax, but replace it with Land Value Tax, paid throughout the time you own that location, reflecting the value that others create at your location. Read about it: "Ricardo's Law: House Prices and the Great Tax Clawback Scam" (Fred Harrison)

We’ve heard recently how political parties are trying to grapple with the problem of inheritance tax affecting middle class families “affected” by property price rises rather than the “super rich” it was supposedly intended for.

Might I float a possible solution? Instead of a cash tax payable on inheritance of an asset, estates could split the property, passing a 99 year leasehold onto the beneficiaries of the estate and the freehold into a community land trust so that eventually the value and control of that land will pass back to that community.

This is after all how the “super rich” have mitigated their inheritance tax, through that august body the National Trust, for many years.

Most land price change has nothing to do with the current occupiers of that land, and everything to do with public policy and spending such as planning consent or the building of local infrastructure at public expense.

More crucially, land value is a “zero sum” game. Rising land values directly exclude whole swathes of a new “landless” class as a result. It is surely right that such inequity be redressed periodically. When better than at inheritance time? This method will at least not immediately harm the beneficiaries or force them to sell the family home.

Over a few generations such a mechanism could properly redistribute unearned wealth better than inheritance tax ever could.