Introducing a Land Value Tax would force homeowners with gardens to sell them.
It would depend on how the policy was actually designed. Labour has only committed to considering the idea, as have the Green and Liberal Democrat parties.
"Labour (along with similar proposals from the Greens and Lib Dems) proposes to introduce a Land Value Tax. (LVT)—hereafter called the “garden tax”, which will be based on three per cent of the value of land for each property.
“For many homeowners this could represent a massive increase in their annual tax bill and force the sale of gardens in order to reduce bills."
Daily Express, 30 May 2017
Labour isn't committing to an extra tax on people's gardens. Its manifesto only promised:
"We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax."
A Land Value Tax is a tax on the potential value of land itself, ignoring anything that's built on it. It isn’t being proposed as an additional tax, but as a potential replacement for council taxes and/or business rates.
Some media outlets have dubbed it a 'garden tax', as the Daily Express did.
There's no reason to assume enthusiastic gardeners would be badly hit by switching systems
Since the value of land itself often boils down to its location, some fear that homeowners with urban gardens would lose out if council taxes or business rates were replaced by a Land Value Tax. The Economist noted the risk that “urban homeowners with gardens” would lose out, since “the tax will encourage them to build on them, which is good for the housing stock but bad for the environment”.
Media reports this week also cite a study by Oxfordshire County Council, now over a decade old, which found that “normally, the winners are those plots that have little or no garden and the losers are those where houses stand in large grounds and where maximum development is permitted by the planning regime”. The report also said that the balance of winners and losers from switching systems could be altered, depending on how the system was designed.
The devil would be in the detail. It's possible that a new system could account for the difficulties of home-owning gardeners by including exemptions for some kinds of residential property, for example, or protections for particular groups as the new system was phased in.
3% is the wrong rate to be quoting (so is any other figure)
The Daily Express is wrong to say that Labour is proposing a Land Value Tax “based on 3% of the value of each property”.
This figure seems to come from a report hosted on the website of Labour Land, a campaign group which supports the idea of a Land Value Tax.
One of the report's authors told us that the estimates and the strategy explored in it weren’t endorsed by either Labour Land or the Labour Party. The report had been published in 2015 with the header “DRAFT Please do not quote without permission”.
3% would be the wrong figure to quote from it anyway, given that we’re discussing the potential impact on homeowners.
Its authors estimated that councils would initially have to set an average rate of 0.85% for owner-occupiers and 3% for industrial and commercial property. It suggested that different councils would set different rates, so that they collected the same revenue as they had through business rates and council tax.
The idea will probably be on the table at some point, whichever party comes to power
The business rate and council tax system have been widely criticised for being unfair and inefficient, and Land Value Tax is an idea that’s been around for over 150 years.
The idea has also been promoted by economists across the political spectrum, including the free-market Adam Smith Institute, the left-leaning Centre for Labour and Social Studies, the non-aligned Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Economist, a liberal magazine.
The Conservatives have also promised a review into the business rates system. So it seems likely that the idea will be considered in a review at some point, whichever party comes to power.
There would be winners and losers
There would be winners and losers from replacing Council Tax with a Land Value Tax, but that doesn't mean that you would necessarily lose out compared to the other options.
An alternative is reforming the current council tax system so that it reflects current property prices more accurately. That would also create a lot of winners and losers, in the same way that the recent business rates revaluation did.
The IFS think tank, which supports the idea, summarises that:
"Moving from a property-based tax to a land-based tax would also create numerous gainers and losers. This is politically difficult. But then a major revaluation exercise just to bring current [council] taxes up to date would also create winners and losers, which is perhaps why politicians have avoided doing it."
Update 1 June 2017
We added a section on why 3% is the wrong figure to be quoting (as is any other figure) and deleted a subsequent paragraph to avoid repetition.
The integrity of our elections is in danger, and we need your help
You’re probably here looking for facts. Thank you for that trust. But with the EU parliament elections on the way and more elections a possibility, we need to act now to make sure our elections are protected, before it’s too late.
Could you help protect our elections by becoming a Full Fact donor?
Misinformation isn’t new, but advancements in technology mean it can spread at an unprecedented scale. Our dangerously outdated election laws have not kept up with the digital age, putting our next elections at risk of abuse.
Currently, it’s possible for a candidate to run a thousand different political ads to win the same seat, promising something different to each group it targets. At the same time, there’s no law requiring those who publish online campaigns to disclose who they are or how they are funded. The opportunity for bad actors to manipulate election results is left wide open.
You may already know about our work to make public debate online more honest and transparent. Every day, we call out the most harmful misinformation on social media platforms when and where we see it. But right now, we’re urging the government to overhaul our election laws to make sure political campaigning is held to the same level of scrutiny online as it is offline.
This work all depends on the generosity of hundreds of people who all believe that for democracy to work, we need transparency. Our monthly donors help strengthen our voice, and show our politicians that this really matters. Would you consider joining them?
Become a donor today to make sure our elections are protected.