From Farmers' Weekly:
The Scottish Land Commission has been instructed by the government to investigate the tax as part of a wider piece of research on land reform issues.
The taxation would raise public revenue through an annual charge based on the rental value of land, typically levied against the unimproved value of that land, not taking into account any buildings, services or infrastructure.
So far so good, here's the classic one-liner:
Shadow rural economy secretary Peter Chapman said the prospect of such a level could be “catastrophic” for farm incomes.
Woah! His argument is totally devoid of facts - without knowing the proposed tax rate (anything between 1% and 100%) it is impossible to say what the impact will be, could be anything between "very modest claw back of agricultural subsidies" (which average out at £40 per hectare per year in Scotland, as far as I can make out) all the way up to "quite a lot".
Then we get into logic free arguments:
Andrew Wood, partner with property consultant Bidwells, said this plan would increase food production costs and put Scotland at a further disadvantage for doing business and securing investment.
Whether it increases total food production costs or not depends on whether the Scottish government reduces other devolved taxes (income tax, business rates, LBTT and Council Tax). Because of the tendency of LVT to stimulate output per unit of land, per-unit production costs will probably fall, or worst case, stay the same.
LVT has little impact on "doing business", in fact it probably helps people wanting to "do business" because it strengthens their hand against land owners who want to hold them to ransom charge them rent, and after all, it's "business" which invests, land is just there to be used.
Debate Magazine
