On the day that George Osborne is due to deliver his 2012 Autumn statement, I thought it might be worth reminding ourselves of what he thought of the Irish economy in 2006 when, on 23 February he gave a speech to the University College Dublin’s Michael Smurfit School of Business. What follows is a reproduction of an article by Osborne published in The Times on the same day. Ignoring the role of banks, private debt and land speculation, he paints a rosy picture of the Celtic tiger and how the Uk should emulate its success. 

A generation ago, the very idea that a British politician would go to Ireland to see how to run an economy would have been laughable. The Irish Republic was seen as Britain’s poor and troubled country cousin, a rural backwater on the edge of Europe. Today things are different. Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking, and that is why I am in Dublin: to listen and to learn. After centuries of lower incomes, Irish average incomes are now 20 per cent higher than in the UK. After being held back for decades, the productivity of Irish companies — the yardstick of economic performance — has grown three times as quickly as ours over the past ten years. Young Irish families once emigrated in their millions to seek a better life overseas; these days it is young people across Europe who come to Ireland to find good jobs. Dublin’s main evening newspaper even carries a Polish-language supplement.

Ireland is no longer on the edge of Europe but is instead an Atlantic bridge. High-tech companies such as Intel, Oracle and Apple have chosen to base their European operations there. I will be asking Google executives today why they set up in Dublin, not London. It is the kind of question I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking.

What has caused this Irish miracle, and how can we in Britain emulate it? Three lessons stand out. First, Ireland’s education system is world-class. On various different rankings it is placed either third or fourth in the world. By contrast, Britain is ranked 33rd and our poor education performance is repeatedly identified by organisations such as the OECD as our greatest weakness. It is not difficult to see why. Staying ahead in a global economy will mean staying at the cutting edge of technological innovation, and using that to boost our productivity. To do that you need the best-educated workforce possible. It is telling that even limited education reform is proving such a struggle for the Prime Minister.

Secondly, the Irish understand that staying ahead in innovation requires world class research and development. Using the best R&D, businesses can grow and make the most of the huge opportunities that exist in the world. That is why it is shocking that the level of R&D spending actually fell in Britain last year. Ireland’s intellectual property laws give incentives for companies to innovate, and the tax system gives huge incentives to turn R&D into the finished article. No tax is paid on revenue from intellectual property where the underlying R&D work was carried out in Ireland. While the Treasury here fiddles with its complex R&D tax credit system, I want to examine whether we could not adopt elements of Ireland’s simple and effective approach.

Thirdly, in a world where cheap, rapid communication means that investment decisions are made on a global basis, capital will go wherever investment is most attractive. Ireland’s business tax rates are only 12.5 per cent, while Britain’s are becoming among the highest in the developed world.

Economic stability must come before promises of tax cuts. If, over time, you reduce the share of national income taken by the State, then you can share the proceeds of growth between investment in public services and sustainably lower taxes. In Britain, the Left have us stuck debating a false choice. They suggest you have to choose between lower taxes and public services. Yet in Ireland they have doubled spending on public services in the past decade while reducing taxes and shrinking the State’s share of national income. So not only does Ireland now have lower business and income taxes than the UK, there are also twice as many hospital beds per head of population.

World-class education, high rates of innovation and an attractive climate for investment: these are all elements that have helped to raise productivity in Ireland. It is not the only advanced economy to have achieved this uplift. Last week in Washington the new Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, told me about the impact that the sustained increase in productivity growth had made in generating prosperity in the US. By contrast, in Britain productivity growth has fallen in recent years and is far behind the likes of the US and Ireland. Indeed, it is one fifth the rate it was when Gordon Brown walked into the Treasury. Poor skill levels, rising taxes, bureaucratic planning controls and chronic overregulation are high on the list of culprits. Britain is being left behind.

Faced with the extraordinary rise of economies such as China, India and Brazil, many European governments seem to have accepted that long-term decline is inevitable. I detect a similar pessimism here. How on earth, people ask, will we ever compete in such a fiercely competitive world? The Chancellor’s answer is to put up the shutters and stick on a path of ever-higher taxation and an ever- growing State. But you cannot shut out the future.

The new global economy poses real long-term challenges to Britain, but also real opportunities for us to prosper and succeed. In Ireland they understand this. They have freed their markets, developed the skills of their workforce, encouraged enterprise and innovation and created a dynamic economy. They have much to teach us, if only we are willing to learn.

Simon Pia, writing in today’s Scotsman, provides a welcome reminder that property tax in Scotland is in a mess with politicians of most persuasions (he quite rightly excludes the Scottish Greens & their LVT proposals) have avoided this thorny issue in an attempt to curry populist favour with the electorate. Now I believe in democracy, so why is it wrong that politicians should adopt policies popular with the electorate?

Well in this instance, the council tax freeze was implemented as part of the appeal of Labour and the SNP in a Scottish Parliament election. But the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to set council tax rates. In order to implement its promises following the 2011 election the SNP had, in effect, to bribe local authorities to accept the freeze or face cuts in revenue. This corruption of democracy is made possible by the lack of any constitutional protection for local government’s autonomy – a point elaborated on recently by David O’Neil, the President of COSLA. In short, central government has virtually unfettered freedom to interfere in the affairs of local government even to the extent of abolishing it.

So, if local authorities wish to freeze the council tax – fine. But the Scottish Government should have no power to do so or to appeal to voters in national elections on the basis of this brazen interference with local government’s freedoms and powers.

If, in next year’s Federal elections in Germany, Angela Merkel were to appeal to voters in Lower Saxony by promising to freeze their local taxes, she would be up in front of the Supreme Court for breaching Article 28(2) of the German constitution which entrenches the rights of Länder and Municipalities to regulate their own affairs and set their own tax bases. Scotland’s Holyrood parties don’t need to worry about such a fate.

As Simon Pia argues, we need to sort out property taxation. On the face of it the Scottish Government is very active in this area.

It is proposing reform of Stamp Duty Land Tax.

This afternoon in the Scottish Parliament is expected to pass the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties etc.) (Scotland) Bill which will allow the reduction of certain exemptions on business rates.

Tomorrow it will launch a consultation on the future of business rates.

It is committed to a review of the council tax in this Parliament.

But the problem with the Government’s approach is that it is piecemeal. All these reviews are being conducted in isolation from each other. Land and property taxes are far too important to be dealt with on an ad-hoc basis and need to be considered as a whole in relation to the role of land in the economy.

In a previous post, I highlighted the absurdity of an empty industrial building in Glasgow whose owners have avoided over £600,000 in business rates over their 5 years of ownership. When it caught fire in November 2011, Strathclyde Fire and Rescue were expected to put the fire out at great expense and risk to their staff. Strathclyde Fire and Rescue, unlike the property developers that owned the building do pay business rates – over £2 million in just 1 year.

Under the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties etc.) (Scotland) Bill, empty industrial properties like this will continue to be exempt from tax despite their owners taking advantage of local services paid for by others.

Meanwhile, five-a-side football pitches, river-gauging stations, wind farms, lighthouses, ambulance stations and advertising panels on bus shelters are all liable to pay business rates. Public parks, diplomatic missions and cash machines in rural areas, on the other hand are exempt. So too is agricultural land and sporting rights which is why the Duke of Westminster who is one of the richest men in Britain pays nothing on the 95,000 acres he owns in Sutherland (though the estate office and a self-catering unit are assessed). Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, the rule of Dubai also pays nothing on his 62,000 acre Killilan Estate. So whilst the pub, the filling station and the local hotel all pay their share of local taxes, most landowners pay nothing.

The OECD and the Mirrlees Review have both drawn attention to the benefits and importance of land taxes as far and progressive means of public finance.

Why do Scottish and UK politicians continue to duck the issue?

UPDATE 1235 I am grateful to Ed Iglehart for drawing my attention to this short article he wrote on the topic of local government. It includes a useful link to a report commissioned by the Scottish Office for the McIntosh Commission in 1998 – The Constitutional Status of Local government in Other Countries. Also, in response to a comment by Neil King, worth having a look at this presentation from the Norwegian Fire Service were fire and rescue is the responsibility of the municipalities which cope quite well with the responsibility.

29. August 2012 · Comments Off on Scottish Land & Buildings Transaction Tax · Categories: Finance & Money, Fiscal Policy, Housing, Land Reform, Politics

Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisers with Professor James Mirrlees 2nd from right.

The Scottish Government has been consulting on a replacement for Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) – one of the devolved taxes in the Scotland Act 2012. The consultation closes tomorrow (30 August 2012) and I have submitted a response. Yesterday, I spent a stimulating afternoon as a member of a panel discussing property and land tax organised by the Scottish Policy and Innovation Forum where my personal highlight was hearing from Eugene Creighton, Head of Income and Capital Taxes in the Irish Revenue.

As has become the norm in Government consultations, we are invited to answer a set of questions. In the case of this consultation, I declined to answer these questions for the simple reason that they all assume that it is a good idea to replace SDLT with what is being called a Scottish Land and Buildings Transaction Tax. My view is that such a transaction tax should be abolished in its entirety.

I cite in support of my view no less an authority than Professor James Mirrlees, Scottish economist, Nobel prize winner and member of the Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisers. Professor Mirrlees led an exhaustive 5-year review of the UK tax system funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Nuffield Foundation.

Their view of Stamp duty land tax?

“Stamp duty is among the most inefficient and damaging of all taxes.

There is no sound case for maintaining stamp duty and we believe it should be abolished”(1)

The Mirrlees Review recommends the abolition of business rates, council tax and stamp duty land tax to be replaced by a Housing Services Tax and a Land Value Tax. (2)

My recommendation to the Scottish Government is to conduct a comprehensive review of property and land tax in Scotland rather than the present ad-hoc approach where stamp duty land tax, council tax and business rates are all subject (or soon to be subject) to separate ad-hoc reform processes. There are a range of issues that need to be addressed in addition to purely fiscal matters. These include the important question of local governance and who should be responsible for setting property tax rates.

I also think that the Scottish Government should pay close attention to the findings of a comprehensive review of tax led by one of their own economic advisers which recommends abolition of transactions taxes on land and property. For a full review of their conclusions read Chapter 16 of the Mirrlees Review Tax by Design especially sections 16.3 and 16.4.

UPDATE 31 AUGUST 2012

The above debate is closely linked to the debate on a wealth tax in the UK kicked off by Nick Clegg’s interview in the Guardian on Tuesday. In the Financial Times on Wednesday, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Howard Davies, dismissed the practicalities of the idea but did advocate a land value tax as workable alternative.

UPDATE 2 NOVEMBER 2012

The responses to the SDLT consultation can be viewed here and an analysis is published here.

UPDATE 3 DECEMBER 2012

The Land and Buildings transaction Tax (Scotland) Bill was published on 29 November 2012.

(1) Press Release 14 September 2011
(2) For further details of Land Value Tax, see my October 2010 paper and other material under “Hot Topics/LVT in the main menu.

UPDATE 22 JANUARY 2013

The Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Bill is now being considered by the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament. I have submitted evidence. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre has produced a briefing on the Bill in which they make the important point (page 8 of the briefing) that the power that has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament is a power to levy a tax on transactions. I argue that we should abolish such a tax. Such an option is open to Parliament but it would have to raise the lost tax receipts from other sources which is why I argue for a proper review of all property tax and the introduction of a land value tax. That, however, is not going to happen. The Scottish Government are committed to this clumsy and complex tax that produces revenues that are unpredictable, necessitates a new bureaucracy and has been criticised by the Scottish Government’s own economic adviser, Professor Mirrlees.

UPDATE 28 MARCH 2013

The Finance Committee today published its Stage One Report on the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Bill. My evidence and the views of Professor Mirrlees are dealt with under “Alternative Approaches” paras. 102 – 108. The Committee recognises that the Scotland Act 2012 requires any replacement tax for SDLT to be a tax on land transactions. The Committee has asked the Scottish Government whether it considered the findings of the Mirrlees Review in bringing forward a replacement tax for Stamp Duty Land Tax.

UPDATE 25 JUNE 2013

Scottish Parliament passes the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Act.

UPDATE 31 JULY 2013

Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Act receives Royal Assent