Putting people at the heart of economics since 1864

Public Revenue Without Taxation


The market mechanism provides the most efficient way of allocating the

resources of an economy. Yet public services, which can count for around half

of economic activity, are charged for indirectly through taxes which have no

direct connection to what the payer receives in return.


These taxes have many adverse effects on the economy, depressing growth,

distorting costs and prices and providing perverse incentives which greatly

distort the market and prevent it from operating optimally.


Public services could be paid for through a market mechanism. To achieve this

it needs to be recognised that landed property values have two components.

The private component relates to the building component of any particular site

but the second, the location value, is a public component since it quantifies all

the external benefits the occupier expects to receive from the location.

If these location values were used to replace taxes to fund public services at

local and national level it would effectively bring the public sector into the market

mechanism. People would pay directly according to the services they received.

Removing the burden of taxation from production and trade would bring greater

freedom and provide opportunities for genuine wealth production.



It is now widely recognised that the free market system provides a self-organising

process that enables a more efficient allocation of a society’s resources than

alternative arrangements based on the implementation of pre-conceived plans by

central authorities. At the same time the market system offers much greater

individual economic freedom and the opportunities for individuals to fulfil their

potential in society.


In a free market transactions are voluntary and are undertaken between a willing

buyer and a willing seller. There are many independent buyers and sellers who can

compete on quality of service and price. Prices are the outcome of the law of supply

and demand, and the overall outcome under a prevailing set of conditions is a

condition of stability and optimal allocation.


And yet, when it comes to the provision of public services, which in a modern

economy can account for around half of the total economic activity, an entirely

different mechanism is used which in many respects is the antithesis of the market

system. Goods and services are often made freely available and corresponding

costs are met mainly by taxation: “a compulsory contribution imposed by a public

authority, irrespective of the amount of service rendered in return”.  For these

services there is now no willing buyer or seller, no competition and no price

mechanism. If one traces back the origins of these arrangements and, particularly

the varied and complex methods of taxation employed to collect revenue required to

pay for the services, it is found that they are rarely due to the application of sound

economic principles and more often the result of short term political expediency.


A century ago when government expenditure and corresponding taxation amounted

to around 10% of GDP these mechanisms may have had some impact but did not

dominate the way the economy operated. Now they have grown to such an extent

that the distortions on the market mechanism are so great that it can no longer

operate in the way intended and the desired outcomes of the market system are no

longer obtained. An unintended consequence is the growth of the proportion of the

population that has become dependent on the state.


Strangely, given the superiority of market mechanisms, there is a rather passive

acceptance of this situation. Questions about taxation are often limited to the effects

of small adjustments in rates, special provisions and how to deal with the complex

mechanisms of avoidance and evasion. The overall effectiveness, validity and

desirability of the basic process of financing of government services through arbitrary

levies are rarely questioned. Yet if the market mechanism is so much more effective at

efficiently distributing society’s resources, surely the question that needs to be asked

is why is it not used for the supply of public sector services as well as private sector




Before considering the possibilities of using market mechanisms to govern the

supply of public services, let us first consider the effect of conventional taxation on

the market economy. Taxes do much more than supply government with revenue.

They have a huge impact on the way that economic players behave. For example, a

levy of 15c per bag on plastic bags introduced in Eire in 2002 decreased plastic bag

usage by around 95%. That outcome indicates the sensitivity of behaviour to the

imposition of arbitrary levies. Taxes intended just to raise revenue are going to affect

behaviour just as much as those directly intended to change behaviour.


In the UK, the incidence of taxation falls to a large extent on employment. This has a

huge impact on employment patterns the extent of which is rarely recognised. The

nominal income tax rate of 20% disguises the full impact. Take the example of an

employee earning a gross salary of £25,000 pa, just below the average for the UK.

What goes into the employee’s bank account and is available for them to spend is

£20,174. To provide this, taking into account employer and employee’s national

insurance as well as PAYE, will cost the employer £27,331 pa i.e. 35% extra.


To put it another way, for every three employees an employer takes on at around the

average wage they have to send to HMRC an amount that would pay for a fourth

worker. Or one could say that to be worth being taken on and given a take home pay

of £20,000 pa an employee has to be able to add over £27,000 pa of value for their



This analysis indicates that income tax hugely inflates the cost of labour and thus

distorts the relative cost of labour and capital, disadvantaging labour-intense and

service-rich industries compared with those that are capital intensive. This in turn

introduces huge distortions into the market mechanism determining the equilibrium

between supply and demand. This is represented by a deadweight loss in the supply

and demand curves (see figure 1). Conventional theory explains how both buyer and

seller lose out, but to different extents depending on the relative elasticities of supply

and demand curve for any particular product.


Figure 1: Deadweight loss of taxation on supply/demand curve


What has been said so far is not quite the full story because when the employee

comes to spend their salary a considerable portion goes on indirect taxation, ONS

data indicate that the top 20% of earners paid about 14% of their disposable income

in indirect taxes, of which the main one is VAT whereas the bottom 20%, the lowest

earners, paid about 31% of their disposable income in indirect taxes.


VAT at 20% effectively inflates the retail price of goods and services by 20%

distorting both supply and demand but overall reducing the equilibrium quantities

sold in the market by a significant amount. As a particular example, let us take the

restaurant sector. As a trade with a high service component it is already affected by

the high taxes on employment. In addition all restaurant prices are inflated by 20%

by VAT.


Suppose our employee takes his family out for a meal and the bill is £50. Without

VAT it would be 20% less, and without PAYE for the restaurant staff, less still, say

£33. To supply their employee with that £50 will cost the employer around £67, that

is around double what the meal would have cost without these taxes. This is a

simplistic example but it gives an indication of the weight of the burden of

conventional tax that hangs around the neck of our economy and the possibilities of

greater freedom and prosperity that it now prevents.



These high taxes raise the bar considerably for what constitutes a viable business. It

is not sufficient for costs to be covered and a modest return to be made. A

considerable arbitrary contribution to pubic revenue is also required. These taxes are

applied equally over all regions. They impact most heavily at the margins. How many

businesses, that would be viable if they just had to cover costs with sales income,

are not viable with the burden of taxation (particularly PAYE and VAT), and how

many opportunities for enterprise for small businesses does this deny?


There is a geographical aspect to this burden. For some regions, it is much easier to

do business than others. The prosperous south-east for example has many

economic advantages over other parts of the country, not just geographical but also

because of the presence of a prosperous community with disposable incomes. Since

this is given no consideration in the way taxation is levied, the most disadvantaged

regions are taxed at the same rates as the most prosperous. This has a significant

impact on regional prosperity. It is also easy to see how high labour costs have led to

the drawing in of migrants prepared to work for the net-value, highly-taxed wages on

offer in certain regions and that has given rise to associated social issues.


There is a third accepted reason for general taxation in addition to collecting revenue

and adjusting behaviour, and that is to redistribute wealth. This use is based on the

admission of failure. Its basis is the acceptance that the present system is unfair and

leads to unacceptable distributions which then need to be realigned. It is not a

fundamental requirement of public provision and if the preliminary distribution was

equitable would not be necessary. One can see that by burdening enterprise with

heavy taxation, to pay in considerable part for social provision to redistribute, may

even be making the situation worse. If people were simply given the freedom to work

and receive the full product of their earnings much of the social provision may not be




In a modern economy government provides a range of services. For which of these

they are the most suitable provider, and whether there are services which are at

present in the private sector which would be better provided by government, is as

much a matter of politics as it is economics. Although there are certain services which

Adam Smith described as the necessary function of government – defence, law and

order which almost all would agree fall to the state.


From an economic perspective, a distinction can be made between public and

private goods. These are not necessarily those provided by the public and private

sectors respectively. The economic distinction is that public goods can be traded by

individual market transactions in that there is a well-defined commodity or service

and a well-defined recipient. Public goods are those which cannot be the subject of

an individual transaction of which a simple example is street lighting. It is available to

anyone who comes into the area in which it is provided. In addition, partaking of the

service does not diminish it. Such a service is not going to come into existence

without the impulse of some central authority.


On more careful examination many public goods – a legal service, health service,

education, transport systems, library service, emergency services actually have the

characteristics of both types of good. Take for example a road system. There are

individual travellers who make use of it but there is also a benefit to the whole

economy and many businesses benefit from the presence of the system without

using it directly. To attempt to cover the cost of a transport system by

charging individuals would not only not be viable, it would be unjust and also

inefficient. High charges for the service would diminish its use and the whole

economy would suffer. Similar arguments could be applied to other services.


The perceived difficulties of using market mechanisms to pay for public services

have led even the most liberal thinkers to the assumption that despite all its

injustices, its negative impacts on the economy and it being antithetical to the market

mechanism, taxation, i.e. the imposition of arbitrary levies, is the only way to pay for

these services.



However, some have recognised that there is another way and it is time to give them

a voice. In recent times one of the most original thinkers in this respect was the

English economist Ronald Burgess who presented his thoughts in a book with the

compelling title Public Revenue without Taxation,5 from which the title of this essay

and the name of the policy is taken. Reviewing the writings of the early Neo-classic

economists, Burgess rediscovered the key insight of Alfred Marshall that public

works and other public outlays create externalities that are manifested in enhanced

land values. This points to a way of quantifying and thus providing a market

mechanism to pay for public services.


What appears to be the market price of land is in fact a measure of the market price

for those public goods and services to which that piece of land provides the occupier

with access.


What is loosely described as owning property is, more precisely to have property

rights over a piece of land. When analysed more carefully this can be seen to have

two distinct parts which can be regarded as a private value and a public value.6 The

private value is that part of the market value a willing buyer will pay a willing seller for

all the improvements, particularly buildings, which have resulted from work and direct

outlay on the site. These improvements are properly called private and conform to

the idea of private property.


The public value of freehold property rights over land is that part of its current market

price a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller for the net external economies,

advantages and other benefits the occupier expects from the occupation and use of

the land. It was what Alfred Marshall called the “situation value”. This public value

would be equal to the total market price less the value of the improvements.

One example of how this operates, that is familiar to most, is the effect of

infrastructure, such as new transport links, on property values, and also the way

that there is a premium on residential property in the vicinity of good schools.



Given that the public value is due to the actions of the community as a whole, and

particularly the provision of public goods and services, it should naturally fall to the

government, which represents the community as a whole, as a source of public

revenue. How this could work in practice is that those who wish to occupy land to live

or work would need to pay the government to do so. This could be by taking out a

lease for an accepted period of say 75 years, or much more effectively, by paying an

annual charge proportional to the market value of the public component of the

property occupied. The latter would be much more effective since the payment would

vary with the increase or decrease in provision. Direct benefits of this would be the

financing of public investments such as new transport links. They could effectively

become self-financing. With the provision of a new transport link the associated uplift

in land values would now fall to the provider rather than the owner of the land. The

anticipation of the uplift could provide the collateral for the financing of such a

project. Conversely, with the arrival of new developments that have a negative effect

on public site values, such as the installation of an incinerator, those in the locality

would be compensated by reduced payments. There would be much greater

democratic accountability. Communities could vote for increased services with

corresponding increased payments or for a decrease in services with a

corresponding decrease in payment.


Generally, the law of supply and demand could operate. Very favourable sites would

be strongly sought after and in consequence occupiers would pay a premium

location value, marginal locations would have much lower payments.

One of the greatest benefits would be the increased freedom and opportunities that

would become available as conventional taxes were reduced and replaced.

Employment and trade would both become much more viable at the margin and this

is likely to affect those regions which at present are the least prosperous. Reduced

dependency on the state would be likely to reduce government expenditure. Without

taxation of income the per capita employment costs of education, health and other

labour-intensive services would reduce considerably.


These are particular improvements but the overall effect of this policy would be to re-balance the economy.

Present conditions, particularly in the UK with its heavy taxes

on productive enterprise and low taxation on income from uplifts in property values

encourage rent extraction and discourage the provision of wealth and services.

Replacing taxation with payment of land rents would move in the opposite direction

and mean that unearned income from property would be much less attractive and

productive activity much more viable. This would rebalance the distribution of wealth

addressing the many problems now identified with excessive inequality and

particularly provide opportunities for greater earned prosperity for those now in the

lowest portion of the income scale.


Figure 1 source: http://www.econport.org/econport/request?page=web_experiments_modules_taxes_lecture

Share Post