Here are five reasons why the business rates system doesn’t work

Chancellor Philip Hammond, with his friends and allies from the prime minister's team. Image: Getty.

In recent weeks, the upcoming revaluation of business rates has risen to the top of the news agenda, prompted by opposition to the changes from some of the UK’s biggest employers’ groups; the debate led the chancellor, Philip Hammond, to take steps to soften the impact in his recent budget.

The impending revaluation is intended to ensure business rates are set at a level which reflects the rental value of the property they occupy. This has a significant bearing on how competitive a business environment cities can offer, and the revenue generated by the tax is crucial for funding local government.

The problem is, however, that the forthcoming revaluation comes two years later than planned and seven years after the last revaluation. This delay has worsened an already dysfunctional business rates system, which increasingly does not work for either businesses or local government, for the following reasons:

It’s volatile. The lengthy gap between revaluations creates major shocks to the business rates system for both local government as a revenue stream, and for firms as ratepayers.

As a result, businesses across the country are facing dramatic changes in their business rates bill – with many in London and the South East facing significant increase in rates.

It’s not responsive to economic conditions. The current five-year revaluation cycle means that over time businesses are often paying rates based on out of-date valuations.  This is the especially the case since the last revaluation, which occurred before the 2008 recession and came into force in 2010.

Since 2010, businesses in prosperous areas such as London have been paying less in rates than they should be, while companies in poorer places such as Burnley and Hull have been paying more – hence why London firms are now facing particularly large hikes in their rates. 

It’s complex and poorly understood. The long and technical process of valuation, the lack of correlation between the rates and businesses’ ability to pay, and the annual changes in the business rate multipliers, all combine to make the system opaque and hard for businesses to navigate. 

The appeals system creates financial uncertainty for local authorities. The large volume of appeals to the Valuation Office Agency (for example, to raise issues or changes in property valuation),  and the delays in solving cases, mean that many places might have to refund several years’ worth of rates to businesses, putting their budget at risk.

It can reward perverse behaviour. Because the tax is primarily based on growth in commercial floor-space within the revaluation period, the current system rewards space-hungry developments which are often out of town. This can be to the detriment of town and city centres, and the firms based in them. 


By the same logic, the system does not reward behaviour that supports business and public investment, and economic growth which does not increase net rateable floor space.

With the government now considering reforms of business rates ahead of the tax being devolved to local authorities in 2020, how can it make the system more effective and ensure it maximises the benefits from devolution? Three things stand out in particular.

Firstly, more frequent revaluations are needed on a yearly or bi-annual basis, to make the system more accurate and timely, reduce volatility, and to maintain the legitimacy of the tax. More frequent revolutions would also have the additional effect of reducing the significance of appeals. 

Secondly, the government should replace the fixed yield with a fixed rate. The current system requires that business rates should generate a fixed yield in revenue, irrespective of the state of the overall economy. This both amplifies the volatility in the system and creates distortions which benefits more economically vibrant places. 

Removing the cap on business rates and moving to a fixed rate system would make it more responsive to the wider economy and the ability of firms to pay.

Finally, extend the period of time between resets of the system. Revenue from business rates is used to fund local government, and the amount of baseline funding places receive is reset every five years to ensure that it broadly reflects their level of need. This creates uncertainty for local authorities towards the end of this period, as they don’t know how much business rate income they will retain after resetting. It also gives places only a small time-period in which to accumulate growth, and therefore less incentive to make this a priority.

Carrying out the reset every 10 years instead wouldn’t prevent similar issues arising at the end that period – but it would provide authorities with more long-term certainty and greater incentive to grow their economy.

Making these changes will be critical in creating a business rates system that works for both local government and businesses, makes the most of devolution and offers the stability places need to drive local economic growth.

Andrew Carter is chief executive of the Centre for Cities. This is an edited version of an article first posted on the think tank's blog

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 

 
 
 
 

America's cities can't police their way out of this crisis

Police deployed tear gas during anti-racism demonstrations in Los Angeles over the weekend. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

As protesters took to the streets across the United States over the weekend to express their anger at police killings of unarmed black Americans, it was hard to miss the hypocrisy coming from local authorities – including the otherwise progressive, left-leaning officials who are in power in most major American cities. 

Many US mayors and their police chiefs had issued public statements over the past week that seemed – only briefly, as it turned out – to signal a meaningful shift in the extent to which the Black Lives Matters movement is being taken seriously by those who are in a position to enact reforms. 

The sheer depravity of the most recent high-profile killing had left little room for equivocation. George Floyd, 46, died last Monday under the knee of white Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, while three additional officers helped to hold Floyd down, doing nothing to aid him as he begged for them to stop and eventually lost consciousness. The officers had been attempting to arrest Floyd on suspicion of having used a counterfeit $20 bill at a deli. All four have since been fired, and Chauvin was arrested Friday on charges of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. 

“The lack of compassion, use of excessive force, or going beyond the scope of the law, doesn’t just tarnish our badge—it tears at the very fabric of race relations in this country,” Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore told the Washington Post in response to the Floyd case. Meanwhile Moore’s boss, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, on Friday claimed that he understood why his city, which is no stranger to police brutality, was protesting. “We absolutely need as a nation, certainly as a city, to voice our outrage, it’s our patriotic duty to not only stand up for George Floyd but for everybody who has been killed unnecessarily, who’s been murdered for the structural racism that we have in our country,” Garcetti said. 

Normally, US police chiefs and mayors tend to ask citizens to withhold judgment on these types of cases until full investigations can be completed. But a 10-minute video recording of Floyd’s killing had made what happened plain. Police chiefs across the country – and even the nation’s largest police union, which is notorious for defending officer abuses – similarly condemned the actions of the Minneapolis officers, in a rare show of moral clarity that, combined with the arrest of Chauvin, offered at least a glimmer of hope that this time things might be different. 

As the events of the weekend have since shown, that glimmer was all too fleeting. 

In city after city over the past three days, US mayors and their police chiefs made a series of the same decisions – starting with the deployment of large, heavily armed riot units – that ultimately escalated violent confrontations between officers and protesters. Images widely shared on social media Saturday and Sunday nights made it clear that members of law enforcement were often initiating the worst of the violence, and appeared to treat protesters as enemy combatants, rather than citizens they were sworn to protect. 


In New York City, two police SUVs were seen plowing into a crowd of protesters, while elsewhere an officer was recorded pulling down a young protester’s coronavirus mask in order to pepper spray his face

In Louisville, the city where Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old black woman was fatally shot by police on 13 March, state police in riot gear were captured confiscating and destroying protesters’ supplies

In Minneapolis, forces opened fire with nonlethal rounds on residential streets, much to the shock of homeowners standing on their own front porches. 

Images of police pushing or shoving peaceful protesters were almost too numerous to count, including, in Salt Lake City, an elderly man with a cane

In many places, police also targeted journalists who were covering the protests, firing at clearly identifiable media crews with rubber bullets, injuring and even arresting reporters

Some protesters did commit acts of vandalism and looting, and the leaders of cities where that happened generally responded in the same ways. 

First, they blamed “outside agitators” for the worst protester behaviour, a claim that harkens all the way back to the civil rights era and for which the evidence is murky at best

Next, they enacted sudden curfews with little to no warning, which gave law enforcement an excuse to make mass arrests, in some cases violently. 

In a pair of widely criticized moves, Garcetti of Los Angeles closed the city’s Covid-19 testing centers and suspended the entire mass transit system Saturday evening, stranding essential workers on their way home from daytime shifts. Late Sunday night in Chicago, the city’s public school system halted its free meal distribution service for low-income children, citing “the evolving nature of activity across the city”.  

Governors in at least 12 US states, in coordination with city leaders, have since called in National Guard troops to “help”. 

At this point it’s clear that the leaders of America’s cities are in desperate need of a radically different playbook to respond to these protests. A heavily armed, militarised response to long-simmering anger toward the heavily armed, militarised approach to American policing is more than ironic – it’s ineffective. Granting police officers wider latitude to make arrests via curfews also seems destined to increase the chances of precisely the tragic, racially biased outcomes to which the protesters are reacting. 

There are other options. In places such as Flint, Michigan, and Camden, New Jersey – both poor cities home to large black populations – local law enforcement officials chose to put down their weapons and march alongside protesters, rather than face off against them. In the case of Camden, that the city was able to avoid violent clashes is in no small part related to the fact that it took the drastic step of disbanding its former police department altogether several years ago, replacing it with an entirely new structure. 

America’s cities are in crisis, in more ways than one. It’s not a coincidence that the country has tipped into chaos following months of emotionally draining stay-at-home orders and job losses that now top 40 million. Low-income Americans of colour have borne a disproportionate share of the pandemic’s ravages, and public health officials are already worried about the potential for protests to become Covid-19 super-spreading events.

All of this has of course been spurred on by the US president, who in addition to calling Sunday for mayors and governors to “get tough” on protesters, has made emboldening white nationalists his signature. Notably, Trump didn’t call on officials to get tough on the heavily armed white protesters who stormed the Michigan Capitol building over coronavirus stay-at-home orders just a few weeks ago. 

US mayors and their police chiefs have publicly claimed that they do understand – agree with, even – the anger currently spilling out onto their streets. But as long as they continue to respond to that anger by deploying large numbers of armed and armored law enforcement personnel who do not actually live in the cities they serve, who appear to be more outraged by property damage and verbal insults than by the killings of black Americans at the hands of their peers, and who are enmeshed in a dangerously violent and racist policing culture that perceives itself to be the real victim, it is hard to see how this crisis will improve anytime soon. 

Sommer Mathis is the editor of CityMetric.