Re: [LandCafe] Re: Tax Incidence and Land Tax
- From: Roy Langston <roy_langston1@...>
> that the tax on pure land rents is atFeldstein was correct in saying that with LVT, there is more investment in capital goods, but his conclusion that therefore the rate of interest would fall is incorrect.
> least partly shifted.
You can get it from Jstor and a couple of other places for a fee.
The next best thing is a paper about Feldstein’s paper at:
or you can try the attachment, but it’s pretty big and may not make it!
Has anyone ever read this paper by Martin Feldstein, and if so, is he wrong or what part(s) does he have correct?
Abstract: The classic example of an unshiftable tax is the general tax on pure rental income. Since Ricardo, economists have believed that the annual net rental income of unimproved land falls by the amount of the annual tax and its price by the capitalized value of this tax. This paper shows that these conclusions are false, that the tax on pure land rents is at least partly shifted, and that the price of land may be increased by the imposition of a tax. Implications are suggested for the analysis of the corporate income tax and the taxation of natural resources.
[From: "The Surprising Incidence of a Tax on Pure Rent: A New Answer to an Old Question," The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 85, No. 2 (Apr., 1977), pp. 349-360. Quoted in Land & Liberty, November 12, 1994]