I have put off delving into this side of the Gesellian perspective, but I realize it really needs to be addressed if we are to conduct a thorough examination of Gesell’s theories and proposals. For those who are not already familiar with Gesell’s thoughts on land, the first thing to know is that he categorically opposed private land ownership.
"...extorted by the dagger, or procured through fraud..." Yes, how the land was made private in the first place is an important part of the campaign. When that happened we were all robbed and the ancient concept of usufruct was crushed under the boot of usury. But I think if the money part can put the public back into public policy then the land part can be more effectively pursued. Our environmental circumstances behoove us to get many more farmers back on the land to grow soil, nutrient dense food, fiber and trees. Our social circumstances behoove us to assure economic empowerment of women which is part of the land issue. Under the current system of usury we can hardly get the conversation started.
This article is not about usuary per se, but about our rights to natural resources including the land. It is immediately clear that when access rights to useful sites of land are withheld, that some landless persons are dependent on the land managers (or owners) for employment and in making a living. Since this opportunity is not fairly shared, the poverty that results is thought to be a responsibility of the community, but it really is due to the way land is allowed to be owned by individuals.
The value of the land has been found to depend on the local population density as well as certain aspects of the local surroundings. As more people come to occupy a region and the tax money is partly used by governments to improve the infrastructure, so too does the land's usefulness grow and its value increase. There would be no sense in building a cassino in the middle of a desert, unless access to it was at least as easy as if the cassino were placed in the middle of town. Tall buildings go with high utility of useful sites.
Without this natural form of wealth being shared in a socially just way there will always be discontented people whose income is small or non-existent and the need for political organizations to represent their various viewpoints and land utility groups and organizations promoting both sides of the situation become necessary.
The benefit from what can be produced by a site that is properly used consists of 3 kinds of returns which are wages (for the labor needed), interest (or dividend) for tools, buildings, transports etc. (that is to say durable capital goods) and rent for direct occupation and use of the land. Land owners can get rich from this rent without doing a stroke of work whilst capitalists who own the durables have to maintain them and replace them when the become obsolete. The land does not have this property although it is possible to improve its fertility by adding material to it and of course by providing improved access to it.
Were the land access rights and their benefits fairly shared there would be less differences between these two classes of persons that result from this above described situation. Were all land owners to return to the nation their rent, so that everyone would then be able to benefit from the elimination of every kind of taxation that currently burdens the community as a whole, then there would be a greater demand for produce along with more land being properly used to provide for this need and a greater rate of progress to more prosperity. TAX LAND NOT PEOPLE; TAX TAKINGS NOT MAKINGS!
In "The Case for Nationalisation of Land" Gesell writes:
The transfer tax in many parts of Germany amounts to 1 - 2 - 3%, and in Alsace to as much as 5%. If we consider that landed property is in most cases mortgaged up to three-quarters of its value, we can understand the seriousness of this obstacle; the transfer tax claims one-fifth of the sum received by the seller, one-fifth of the buyer's capital. So if a man changes his abode five times - which is not too often for his proper development - his whole fortune is absorbed in taxes. And the unearned increment tax advocated by the land reformers, which is collected only on transfer, makes matters still worse
These are details from his time and place. I wonder how that is relevant today? How does it compare to present day situation in practical terms?
I've started reading the book and there's a lot about free land, how ability to move away to free land and start afresh influences wages etc.
It seems a lot of emphasis is based on farming. But in modern economy most people don't engage in farming, it's kinda left outside of equation. Most just get the food and forget about it...
"...extorted by the dagger, or procured through fraud..." Yes, how the land was made private in the first place is an important part of the campaign. When that happened we were all robbed and the ancient concept of usufruct was crushed under the boot of usury. But I think if the money part can put the public back into public policy then the land part can be more effectively pursued. Our environmental circumstances behoove us to get many more farmers back on the land to grow soil, nutrient dense food, fiber and trees. Our social circumstances behoove us to assure economic empowerment of women which is part of the land issue. Under the current system of usury we can hardly get the conversation started.
This article is not about usuary per se, but about our rights to natural resources including the land. It is immediately clear that when access rights to useful sites of land are withheld, that some landless persons are dependent on the land managers (or owners) for employment and in making a living. Since this opportunity is not fairly shared, the poverty that results is thought to be a responsibility of the community, but it really is due to the way land is allowed to be owned by individuals.
The value of the land has been found to depend on the local population density as well as certain aspects of the local surroundings. As more people come to occupy a region and the tax money is partly used by governments to improve the infrastructure, so too does the land's usefulness grow and its value increase. There would be no sense in building a cassino in the middle of a desert, unless access to it was at least as easy as if the cassino were placed in the middle of town. Tall buildings go with high utility of useful sites.
Without this natural form of wealth being shared in a socially just way there will always be discontented people whose income is small or non-existent and the need for political organizations to represent their various viewpoints and land utility groups and organizations promoting both sides of the situation become necessary.
The benefit from what can be produced by a site that is properly used consists of 3 kinds of returns which are wages (for the labor needed), interest (or dividend) for tools, buildings, transports etc. (that is to say durable capital goods) and rent for direct occupation and use of the land. Land owners can get rich from this rent without doing a stroke of work whilst capitalists who own the durables have to maintain them and replace them when the become obsolete. The land does not have this property although it is possible to improve its fertility by adding material to it and of course by providing improved access to it.
Were the land access rights and their benefits fairly shared there would be less differences between these two classes of persons that result from this above described situation. Were all land owners to return to the nation their rent, so that everyone would then be able to benefit from the elimination of every kind of taxation that currently burdens the community as a whole, then there would be a greater demand for produce along with more land being properly used to provide for this need and a greater rate of progress to more prosperity. TAX LAND NOT PEOPLE; TAX TAKINGS NOT MAKINGS!
In "The Case for Nationalisation of Land" Gesell writes:
The transfer tax in many parts of Germany amounts to 1 - 2 - 3%, and in Alsace to as much as 5%. If we consider that landed property is in most cases mortgaged up to three-quarters of its value, we can understand the seriousness of this obstacle; the transfer tax claims one-fifth of the sum received by the seller, one-fifth of the buyer's capital. So if a man changes his abode five times - which is not too often for his proper development - his whole fortune is absorbed in taxes. And the unearned increment tax advocated by the land reformers, which is collected only on transfer, makes matters still worse
These are details from his time and place. I wonder how that is relevant today? How does it compare to present day situation in practical terms?
I've started reading the book and there's a lot about free land, how ability to move away to free land and start afresh influences wages etc.
It seems a lot of emphasis is based on farming. But in modern economy most people don't engage in farming, it's kinda left outside of equation. Most just get the food and forget about it...