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
THE EFFECTS OF CONVENTIONAL TAXATION
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%
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.
TAXATION AND MARGINAL BUSINESSES
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
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GOODS
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
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COMPONENTS OF PROPERTY VALUES
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
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.
PUBLIC REVENUE FROM THE PUBLIC COMPONENT
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.