Broad-Based Taxation vs. the Single Tax
The favored public revenue strategy today is
to make taxation as "broad-based" as possible -
that is, to spread it out over as many different
sources as are available. The reasons for this
political as well as theoretical. The more different
tax sources there are, the more they can be played
against each other to favor special interests. Local
taxes can be played against federal subsidies,
property taxes against sales taxes, taxes on
consumption against taxes on production; an
endless variety of deductions, abatements,
tariffs or subsidies can be applied to reward
particular constituents.
The theoretical reason is that taxation is
considered to be a burden on all economic
activity. When such things as wages,
sales, interest, etc. are taxed, it makes goods and services cost
more, thus lowering demand - and demand is what stimulates
production.
So if all taxes are a burden on production, then they
should be spread over as wide an area as possible to minimize the
load on individual producers.
But there is one thing in the economy that can be taxed very
heavily - to the full extent of its value, in fact - without
decreasing the demand for goods and services. A tax on the rental
value of land cannot diminish production, because land is not
produced. A land value tax cannot increase the price of goods
because those prices include the cost of land in any case,
whether the rent is paid to a landowner or to the community.
The "broad-based" tax idea, failing to recognize the distinctive
character of land as a factor of production, seeks to spread out
the tax burden. In so doing, broad-based taxes - whether by
accident or by design - provide all manner of opportunities for
special interests to influence tax policies in their favor, at
the expense of fairness and accountability. Land value taxation,
on the other hand, is merely the collection by the community of
the very fund that the community has created.
Can a Tax on Land Values Be Shifted?
Taxes on commodities are usually passed on to the consumer in
higher prices. What is to stop landowners from doing the same
thing? That is, can a landowner increase the rent charged to
tenants so as to pay the land value tax and still collect the
same net rent as before?
Remember: land is not produced by labor. It is fixed in quantity
and its price is a monopoly price (all the traffic will bear). A
tax on labor products increases the cost of those products and
this is reflected in the price. If the new price meets consumer
resistance, the supply of that product is checked.
But a tax on land does not affect either its cost of production
(it is not produced) or its supply (which is fixed). Thus its
price is not increased (for it is already all the traffic will
bear), and the tax falls directly on the owner. The rent of land
is determined by the margin of production and it is a certain
amount whether taxed or untaxed. A tax on land is simply a
division of the rent between the owner and the community.
Back to Understanding Economics
Back to Liberation Theology and Land Reform