土地增值税：值得转变吗【外文翻译】

《土地增值税：值得转变吗【外文翻译】》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《土地增值税：值得转变吗【外文翻译】（13页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、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 occurr

2、ed 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

3、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 ma

4、rket 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

5、 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 lands

6、 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 sinc

7、e 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

8、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,t

9、he LVT advocatesargument here is that taxing development is inappropriate. Table 1:Past UK Examples of forms of Land Taxation in the UK Tax Levy Years of operation Development Land Tax 100% of the value uplift in land value due to the granting of planning permission. 1947-1953 Betterment Levy 40%,du

10、e to rise through time to encourage early sale,again designed to capture value uplift Captial Gains Tax was also introduced in 1967 to capture increases in the esisting use value of land only. 1967-1971 Development Gains Tax An interim tax on the captial gains derived from the disposal of land and b

11、uildings with development value or potential. 1974 Development Land Tax Taxed development gain i.e.the difference between the net proceeds after disposal of development and eirher the current use value of land or the 1976-1985 cost of land acquisition(whichever was higher). Source:adapted from Conne

12、llan 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 taxation(Andelson,2000).Despite

13、 these and the UKs 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,re

14、spectively,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

15、 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

16、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.Ipprs rec

17、ent 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).