Taxing land and bequests can reduce wealth inequality

A combination of land and bequest taxes could help close the gap between rich and poor without hampering economic growth, suggests a new study co-authored by the MCC.

[Translate to EN:] Bodensteuern, Erbschaftssteuer, Ungleichheit

Photo: Shutterstock / Nomad_Soul


To reduce wealth inequality without diminishing the economic performance of a country, a policy package of bequest taxes and land value taxes could be the optimal solution. Such a policy package would have a strong advantage over corporate taxation, suggests a new study co-authored by the Mercator Research Institute in Global Commons (MCC). It is the first analysis to include the so far neglected factor of land for tackling wealth inequality. The article, led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), has been published in the journal “International Tax and Public Finance”.

Land is of great interest for studying inequality as climate change might increase land prices and thereby affect housing costs. The price increase could be countered by smart taxes that would at the same time reduce overall inequality in a country, and thus help reduce tensions in society that are amplified by populism. “Climate change will likely make land more expensive. Either, unmitigated global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions will expose land to the risk of droughts and floods reducing the area that can be used for agriculture and settlements,” says lead author Max Franks from PIK. “Or, if decision-makers choose to mitigate climate change, land will be used for biomass plantations and wind parks and the like. In either case, land will become scarcer and thus more expensive – and land speculation by investors will drive up housing prices even further.” 

Narrowing the gap between rich and poor is one of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. “In our study, we have therefore investigated how the issue of rising land prices could be addressed in a way that reduces wealth inequality in industrialized countries without sacrificing economic performance,” explains Franks. “Governments have considerable freedom in reducing wealth inequality without sacrificing economic output. The result of our rather complicated conceptual calculations is quite simple: it would make sense to introduce a policy package of land value taxes and bequest taxes – also allowing to reduce corporate taxes or the value-added tax along the way.”

“However, additional regulation would be needed to distribute the tax burden fairly”, adds co-author David Klenert from the MCC. “In particular, many middle-class households have a high share of land in their asset portfolio since they own a house and only comparably little financial wealth. To avoid a further tax burden on the middle class, a land value tax allowance could be established. Moreover, regulation would be needed to make sure that landlords do not pass all of the land value tax costs on to their tenants. Still, despite the complexity of both the side-effects of the taxes and the policies needed to limit them, our conclusions are robust.” 

The study is based on a consensus in the economic literature that bequest dynamics are a major determinant of the shape of wealth distribution. Hence, taxing bequests would redistribute wealth. Yet, if only an additional tax on bequests was introduced today, this would reduce wealth inequality, but it could also harm economic output tomorrow since it would discourage households from saving. A reduction of saving on a national scale, however, would mean that banks have less funds available to pass on to businesses as loans – ultimately reducing national investments. To counteract this tendency, a bequest tax has to be combined with a land value tax, which makes investment in land less lucrative and ensures that savings are directed towards productive investments. A further possible measure to stimulate the economy would be a moderate corporate tax cut offset by the additional public revenues from taxing bequests and land.

A land value tax would have two main effects. First, it would be an incentive for investing money in productive capital, whereas investing in land, and in particular land grabbing, would be less profitable. The rise in productive capital investment would hence directly increase economic output. Second, land value taxes - which are only based on the unimproved value of land, disregarding the value of buildings - would prompt a more efficient use of land. Leaving land vacant would, due to land value taxation, result in the owner losing money; therefore, building apartments, for example, becomes more attractive. This could even help to mitigate housing shortages.

“Interestingly, our analysis finds the greatest positive effects for economic output and wealth inequality reduction if the tax proceeds are used for transfers to the young generations who invest it into better education, found a family, or start a business,” says MCC Director Ottmar Edenhofer, co-author of the study; he is also chief economist and designated director of PIK. “Smart taxing of bequests and land can, thus, help to reduce both intra- and inter-generational wealth inequality.”

“We see a widening gap between rich and poor in many societies, an increase in the volumes of bequests, and a strong increase in land value,” explains Edenhofer. “If policy makers take the sustainable development goals of poverty eradication, inclusive growth, inequality reduction, and sustainable cities seriously, they will need a balanced strategy. This becomes even more important in times when populists exploit middle-class fears and societal tensions. Public finance is an important means to get to the root of the problem.”


More informationen:

Max Franks, David Klenert, Anselm Schultes, Kai Lessmann, Ottmar Edenhofer (2018): Is Capital Back? The Role of Land Ownership and Savings Behavior. International Tax and Public Finance DOI:10.1007/s10797-018-9486-3