Land was created by god or nature for all living things to share. As an Australian, You should get your share of it, even if it costs you a little. You certainly should not be priced out of the ownership of property. Man came along and started drawing lines on it and selling the use of the land. Banks then came along and created virtual money on their books and lent it under usury to moneyless citizens in volumes that could take up to half a lifetime to repay. Land has a limited supply within a nation. Money has an endless supply. It either comes flying out of a printing machine as no cost to manufacture or it is numbers written into a register. So, land tends to gain ever increasing value and becomes only available to those with the capacity to borrow from the usurers.
I also ask: “What is a nation?” The answer is, of course, the land and its people. As such, land should only belong to Australians. And Australians should not be able to purchase overseas land.
The next issue is the level of population or overpopulation. The heavier the immigration, and the larger the population and its expansion will determine its price in the competitive demand for land. We should expect Australians to maintain their population at a sustainable level and their society peaceful and others failure to do so should not damage Australia’s efforts to do so.
I tell a story: I was offered one square kilometre in the middle of Australia’s biggest desert for the price of $1. I foolishly took the offer. I was diddled as it was not worth a brass razoo. There was no water, only sand and rocks. There were no roads within one hundred kilometres and the nearest shop was two hundred kilometres away. I had wasted my $1. I could not even give it away as nobody wanted my parcel of land. A year later, someone found a range of rare minerals. A mine was built and the mining company persuaded the government with citizens taxes to build a road, school, hospital, swimming pool, and all the facilities of a small town. To minimize influence on the environment, the council drew a town border and, with my verbal encouragement, this included my land. My land was divisible into numerous housing plots. My $1 purchase was now worth numerous millions. It was not my intelligence or skill that increased the land value. No action on my part increased the land value. Its value rose due to the proximity of work and facilities. It was nothing to do with the intrinsic value of my barren sand. I took no part in the search for minerals. Its value increased due to the efforts of other. Why should I get profit from the increase in land value? The profit should go to the government that built the facilities.
‘Ownership’ is mainly a permanency of usage rights. Those rights are limited. You don’t ‘own’ down to the centre of the earth. If the government want to build a underground railway beneath your house, you do not own the railway. You don’t own the land above. You cannot stop the birds up high from flying. You don’t own the birds as you might conceptualize owning the tree.. Who owns the roots of your tree if they stray next door? You can’t build high. You may even be limited to the colour, size and style of the house. In reality you should ‘rent’ the use of the land on an annual basis rather than paying a lump sum of the private bank’s money to purchase. This Land Tax arrangement completely elliminates the practice of people owning land and leavinkg it idle for profit making purposes. It is wrong for one section of society to purchase land for the purpose of profit whilst denying others the access to the land at their more modest ability to finance its use.
Populations are expanding, which puts greater demand on land.
It is difficult for an nation to lift itself from poverty to prosperity. Taiwan managed the transformation. The government of Chiang Kai-shek charged landowners for holding land. The wealthy ceased holding land for profit. The poor could afford land. Withing twenty years, Taiwan went from an impoverished nation to the stature of an ‘Asian Tigers’. Asia’s other Tigers used a similar form Land Taxation. Australia also used components of a Land Tax.
A nations is its land and its people. An appropriate relationship is needed between nature and society is required for the successful operation of a nation. Tax should be applied to the items in limited supply, the natural resources – land.
Taxation should be shifted toward land ownership and away from workers and creative activity. Tax should not be applied to homes and buildings as these are the efforts of man, but to the land.
There are significant social benefits of land value taxation and we should resist the power of landed interests.
However, only votes will secure the reform, so the land tax party must exist. This is where organization of the land tax party can begin.
The wealthy landlords also own the news companies, control the education system, and foster lobbyists to ensure that they get to profit from land ownership and its appreciation in value. But it is not just wealthy landlords, even the moderately better off seek to ‘make a nest egg’ to carry them through retirement by purchasing real estate and renting it out. They then claim that they are running a business and expect a tax rebate on the interest at their maximum tax rate. They call it “Negative Gearing”. This has at least two bad effects. Firstly, it reduces tax take by the government. Secondly, it allows the well -off to outbid young people at house auctions because they get a tax rebate not available to high-tax-bracket ‘investors’. This then creates streets full of persons who have no stability for their abode, no connection to the local community, and no sense of ‘ownership, participation, or belonging to the locality. The rental-class becomes the under-class.
It should never be profitable to own land without using it. Profiteering occurs because the tax rate for owning land is low. We need people to vote for Land Tax. Unfortunately, those who own land tend to be politically astute and bias the tax system to favour their activities.
“Ninety percent of all millionaires become so through owning real estate. More money has been made in real estate than in all industrial investments combined.”Andrew Carnegie
This surreptitious deception leads to ignorance of the benefits of land tax. It then keeps the less affluent people in society as ‘slaves’ to a few people. The main source of social problems is the stupid tax system.
“As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of almost all the produce.”Adam Smith
It is unfortunate that the “Singapore solution”, or the “Taiwan triumph” are never well publicized or exemplified by today’s economists. By taking back the effective ownership of land, or rather the fruits of ownership, for the benefit of the whole community, or nation, they are laying a much better foundation for capitalism, which has today come under such condemnation and criticism. This fairer and firmer foundation promotes both equity and equality, which benefits all, both labor and capital. If this were better understood as foundational, our global economy could be much richer and stronger
Any claim to land is based on force. When you claim land, you are saying,
“This is mine, and I will defend it with force.”
There is no reason to expect the rest of humanity to just respect your claim, if you are not willing to use force to defend it.
So if gaining possession of something by forcing it from someone else is legitimate, than all land ownership is illegitimate. I would like you to point to one case where the title holder to land is the direct descendant of the first user.
I am not trying to justify private land ownership, I am asking you to.
Since I make my fortunes collecting economic rent, the status quo is good for me. Private ownership of land is my bread and butter.
· May 9, 2018
“Solving the land question means the solving of all social questions.” – Leo Tolstoy
“Wherever, in any country, there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.” – Thomas Jefferson
2:07 PM · Jan 26, 2020
If the tax system did not reward the holding of valuable urban land vacant as an investment, there would not be so many people who feel like government owes them a living.
An actual economic system would tax for the use of resource, not for the amount of wealth produced with it.
Both left and right are funded by land speculation (real estate), so neither truly wants society to have economic freedom or equal opportunity.
Both “sides” want the masses to be desperate for money.
That is why the single tax on land idea is kept out of journalism and schools.