土地增值税：值得转变吗【外文翻译】

中文4080字

外文翻译

原文：

land value tax:worth the transition

land tax:a better way

Land Value Taxation is an annual tax on the market rental value of land.It would be levied as a fixed rate,Muellbauer suggests 0.5% in chaper three.It taxes the given value of the land,not the development that has occurred on it,and does so whether or not the land has been sold.It has,therefore,a number of advantages over other forms of taxation and addresses a number of the concerns raised obove,especially incentives,equity and economic efficiency.

As an annual charge on the rental value of the land,LVT would not be a tax on transaction and therefore development.As outlined above,not only would this conflict less with government policy to deliver an increase in the rate of housebuilding,it could actively promote it by providing incentives for local anthorities to encourage development.An annual tax on the market rental value of the land-levied regardless of the land use or development on it-would further promote the re-use of brownfield land because a vacant site would still incur an annual charge.Indeed,some argue it could also promote more sustainable patterns of development by encouraging businesses to locate in less prosperous regions as the market value of land would be lower compared to more prosperous regions(LVT Campaign,2002).

LVT also has the benefit of capturing the increase in private wealth that accure through public investment.As an annual fixed rate,revenues would rise as the land’s market value（and therefore tax base）increase.In theory,therefore,there it could provide an automatic revenue stream to help fund infrastructure projects.

There is the need for some caution,however.Forms of land taxation have been tried before.As Table 1 outlines,there have been four attempts since World War Two.These previous taxes have aimed to capture windfall gains from both the

granting of planning permission and also in the case of the Development Land Tax,from development itself.Many reasons have been advanced for their failure.Some complain of their complexity and the fact that none of them were given time to bed-in (Connellan and Lichfield,2000).Others also point to the fact that developers and landowerners often waited for a change of government(usually from Labour to Conservative)as there was widespread opposition amongst this group and within Parliament(Barker,2003).Again,the LVT advocates’argument here is that taxing development is inappropriate.

Table 1:Past UK Examples of forms of Land Taxation in the UK

Source:adapted from Connellan and Lichfield(2000)

Indeed,advocates often point to Denmark and New Zealand as examples where LVT has worked,with both introuducing quite radical schemes in 19th Century.However,both countries have removed their major forms of LVT and retain less radical property taxatio n(Andelson,2000).Despite these and the UK’s setbacks LVT should not necessarily be dismissed.A number of other countries use forms of LVT as part of their fiscal framework-South Afica,some Caribbean states and Western Canada,for example.Slightly different systems operate in Hong Kong and Singapore where all and most land,respectively,is publicy owned and therefore rent flows directly to the state.

Radical reform,not sudden reform

All of these arguments point to the need for reform of how property is taxed in Britain. Simply revaluing homes and introducing a Planning-gain supplement will not prevent these problems from recurning.But radical reform does not mean sudden reform,and the political and logistical barriers to LVT make it a distant goal at best.To make LVT achievable,we must plan how to get there.

Firstly, the current tinkering should be publicly acknowledged as a stepping stone,not a destination.Simply by announcing in which direction it wishes to travel,the government has the power to focus debate and engage the thoughts and experiences of academics and professionals.It is clear from the previous attempts at land taxation that buliding a cross-party political consensus is also important.Ippr’s recent cross-party Commission on Sustainable Development did exactly this,arguing: a land value tax could well be a useful tool for delivering sustainable development,as long as any future reform recognises two fundamental factors.First,new development must be incentived.Second,extra resources are required to meet housing needs within the South East.(South East Commission,2005:55).