IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/loceco/v34y2019i3p213-220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is it possible to incentivise and capture local wealth? The business rate challenge

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Muldoon-Smith

Abstract

How can Government and the Treasury reconcile two often contradictory aspects of the commercial property tax model in England? On the one hand, commercial property tax is required to be responsive to economic conditions, promoting investment in property and business. On the other hand, local commercial property tax, in part, is required to fund local public services. This situation reveals a contradiction in government tax policy that has a direct impact upon local, regional and national economic activity. This Viewpoint article considers the nature of commercial property tax in England, the business rate system, the competing pressures upon the business rate system before considering the main alternative on offer in England, land value tax. Despite the undoubted economic elegance of this instrument, any move towards land value tax should be approached with caution. Any solution to the current business rates impasse should not be led by a pragmatic focus on tax collection. Nor should prevalent issues, the high street, the need for digital tax or public finance demands be considered in isolation – they should be tackled together because they are part of the same complex situation.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Muldoon-Smith, 2019. "Is it possible to incentivise and capture local wealth? The business rate challenge," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 34(3), pages 213-220, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:34:y:2019:i:3:p:213-220
    DOI: 10.1177/0269094219843807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269094219843807
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0269094219843807?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Sandford, 2017. "The quiet return of equalization alongside incentive in the English local government finance system," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 245-252, June.
    2. Paul Michael Greenhalgh & Kevin Muldoon-Smith & Sophie Angus, 2016. "Commercial property tax in the UK: business rates and rating appeals," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 34(6), pages 602-619, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pearson, Jonathan & Muldoon-Smith, Kevin & Liu, Henry & Robson, Simon, 2022. "How does the extension of existing transport infrastructure affect land value? A case study of the Tyne and Wear Light Transit Metro system," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guy Ware, 2017. "Debate: Turning up the volume," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6), pages 431-432, September.
    2. Nikos Kapitsinis, 2019. "A review of the current business rates scheme in Wales and the effects of a potential local retention," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 34(1), pages 10-32, February.
    3. Milyausha R. Pinskaya & Ori A. Alaverdyan & Sergey V. Bogachov & Gurgen K. Ohanyan, 2017. "Methodological Approaches towards Property Taxation in Tax Systems of Russia and Armenia," Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal, Financial Research Institute, Moscow 125375, Russia, issue 4, pages 85-97, August.
    4. Kate Broadhurst & Edward Steane & Vlad Mykhnenko & Nicholas Gray, 2023. "Intergovernmental dynamics in responding to COVID-19 in English and Australian cities," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 16(1), pages 185-196.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:34:y:2019:i:3:p:213-220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/index.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.