UNEARNED INCREMENT
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin, The proposal of Mr. 0. H. Owen in last week's Spectator of a tax on site values in rising districts is both foolish and unjust.
Mr. Lloyd George, in his so-called People's Budget, intro- duced a tax of 20 per cent. on Increment Value of Land. The tax had one of the worst faults of any tax. It cost more to collect than it produced in revenue. It had another deplorable result : it caused a house famine in working-class houses since speculative builders did not care to build in order to be robbed of 20 per cent. of their profits. As to the injustice of Mr. Owen's proposed tax, if I buy shares on the Stock Exchange at 5s. each and subsequently sell them at X*2 each I make a capital profit of 35s. per share, which is not liable to Income Tax or Super(sur) Tax.
Why should land be treated differently ? As soon as it actually produces a building land rent its owner pays Income Tax (and Surtax if his income exceeds £2,000) and rates upon the enhanced value, and if he dies in possession of it (or of its value, if he has sold it) death duties are levied on its full value.
What Mr. Owen proposes is to tax the owner twice on the same property, first by an increment tax that only landowners are to pay, and secondly, on the same property a second time at death.
Any pretext is good enough to penalize the thrifty, but tho Weary Willies and Tired Tints are to be pampered with doles, health insurance, • pensions and subsidized houses at the expense of the capable and thrifty.—I am, Sir, &c., Thornton, Hallamgate Road, Sheffield.
BERNARD 'ROBSON.
Previous page
