Introduce Land Value Taxation–Stop Landlords Living Off Our Tax Payments

Since the times when the Enclosure Acts became law (over a period from about 1650 till 1870), the British community has become divided into two basic classes. Those with land and the right to speculate in its value without putting it to use and those who need to be employed on somebody elses land as dependents on their management for a living. These laws took the "commons" land and stopped the small-scale farmer from being able to earn a living using the land that was previously free. Huge tracts were taken, in some cases whole villages abolished. Workers had to settle in squalid town conditions and work in factories under conditions not fit for slaves (after all you have to care for a slave or you get nowt from him, but a worker can always be replaced).

"They hung the man and flogged the woman

Who stole the goose from off the common. 

But took no heed of what was worse

And stole the land from under the goose."

Land is one of the three basic factors of production (the others being labour and durable capital goods such as buildings and tools). Without any right to occupy a site of land, nothing gets produced and these rights cost a lot too much money. This is because monopolistic land owners can and do hold land out of use for purposes of speculation in its value. This means that the competition for its use raises the ground-rent and/or the purchase price of land. The high rents are passed on as high manufacturing costs and consequently the demand for goods is comparatively low along with the numbers employed.

Thus our system of permissive land holding from the time that Land Lords were created, has driven a wedge between those in charge of opportunity and those needing to make the most of it (the commoners). Land speculation was the basic cause of the present economic crisis, and today as housing prices are still greatly inflated, the lack of employment opportunities is continuing to reduce more and more middle class people into a state of poverty, squalor, crime, drugs trading and homelessness.

The solution, apart from allowing our land to become a commons once again, is to collect from the land owners the advantage that their land is taking away from others. Not only do they benefit from high unearned ground-rents, but these rents continue to rise as our tax money payments are invested in the roads, sewers, emergency and municipal services and infra-structure near where we live, making the sites even more valuable, encouraging the corruption of town planners to disclose where the next development is to take place and providing the way for unscrupulous lawyers to benefit from the land sales with money passing under the table (pre-contracted) so as to reduce stamp duty etc.

The solution to this problem of growing poverty was first proposed by Henry George, an American economist, whose seminal book "Progress and Poverty" of 1879, broke sales records and more than 3 million were taken up. His single-tax proposal was resisted by the Land Lords in both the U.S. in 1898 and here in 1909 by the Lloyd George  government. Obviously the minority of land holders would oppose such a bill, even though the greed and pride of from this small group was harming our society and splitting its apart.

It is time that the effects of the Enclosure Acts were stopped and that the ground-rent was collected as a tax instead of the present taxes on production. Details and features of LVT are given below.

Why is this idea important?

Since the times when the Enclosure Acts became law (over a period from about 1650 till 1870), the British community has become divided into two basic classes. Those with land and the right to speculate in its value without putting it to use and those who need to be employed on somebody elses land as dependents on their management for a living. These laws took the "commons" land and stopped the small-scale farmer from being able to earn a living using the land that was previously free. Huge tracts were taken, in some cases whole villages abolished. Workers had to settle in squalid town conditions and work in factories under conditions not fit for slaves (after all you have to care for a slave or you get nowt from him, but a worker can always be replaced).

"They hung the man and flogged the woman

Who stole the goose from off the common. 

But took no heed of what was worse

And stole the land from under the goose."

Land is one of the three basic factors of production (the others being labour and durable capital goods such as buildings and tools). Without any right to occupy a site of land, nothing gets produced and these rights cost a lot too much money. This is because monopolistic land owners can and do hold land out of use for purposes of speculation in its value. This means that the competition for its use raises the ground-rent and/or the purchase price of land. The high rents are passed on as high manufacturing costs and consequently the demand for goods is comparatively low along with the numbers employed.

Thus our system of permissive land holding from the time that Land Lords were created, has driven a wedge between those in charge of opportunity and those needing to make the most of it (the commoners). Land speculation was the basic cause of the present economic crisis, and today as housing prices are still greatly inflated, the lack of employment opportunities is continuing to reduce more and more middle class people into a state of poverty, squalor, crime, drugs trading and homelessness.

The solution, apart from allowing our land to become a commons once again, is to collect from the land owners the advantage that their land is taking away from others. Not only do they benefit from high unearned ground-rents, but these rents continue to rise as our tax money payments are invested in the roads, sewers, emergency and municipal services and infra-structure near where we live, making the sites even more valuable, encouraging the corruption of town planners to disclose where the next development is to take place and providing the way for unscrupulous lawyers to benefit from the land sales with money passing under the table (pre-contracted) so as to reduce stamp duty etc.

The solution to this problem of growing poverty was first proposed by Henry George, an American economist, whose seminal book "Progress and Poverty" of 1879, broke sales records and more than 3 million were taken up. His single-tax proposal was resisted by the Land Lords in both the U.S. in 1898 and here in 1909 by the Lloyd George  government. Obviously the minority of land holders would oppose such a bill, even though the greed and pride of from this small group was harming our society and splitting its apart.

It is time that the effects of the Enclosure Acts were stopped and that the ground-rent was collected as a tax instead of the present taxes on production. Details and features of LVT are given below.

Teaching Macroeconomics to High-School Students

The subject of macroeconomics is treated today as if it were inexact. Professors and teachers in the art of national government seem to think that there are no exact ways for it to be described and analysed. Even when it comes to the Government, the models that H.M. Treasury uses rely on the statistics of past behavour rather than the theoretical REASON for particular results following particular situations. Thus they replace technical considerations with behavoural ones, and the result is that their forecasts are inexact, illogical and wrong.

It is my contention that Macroeconomics is an exact science and I have been doing sufficient research and writing to be able to justify this claim. My methods are based on an engineering method that is logical and sufficiently simple as to not need a computer for it to be understood. Of course the development of it probably will need this device, but for basic education and realization of what our macroeconomic system REALLY comprises, all that is needed is a few reasonable and likely assumptions followed by some logical analysis. I use a model which is represented by each and either a diagram, a mechanical system, a set of equations and a matrix (see below).

My method is based on systems analysis and the limited mathematics used are related to Wessley Leontief's "Input-Output" matrix, as applied to the whole social system at large. This system is viewed from sufficiently far away so that the detailed microeconomics of our lives are unresolved (in scope) and we no longer "miss the wood for the trees". It is similar to the ideas used in gas properties (Boyles and Charles Laws of physics) where individual molecule behavour is averaged out and Brownian effects forgotten. Unfortunately for us, we are usually so close to the action, that we cannot separate ourselves from this kind of effect. By taking a detached engineering approach it is at last possible to avoud this past limitation and to beging to better appreciate how our system works. This kind of knowledge should be freely available just as in most other aspects of science.

The results of this style of analysis are superior to present methods since the whole of the social system is covered seamlessly, and one can see not only what is going on but exactly why. No other theoretical macroeconomic analysis has come anywhere near achieving these kinds of results. It is the method that I wish to "sell", not any particular national policy. I have a means for better understanding and not a political device for getting my way (even though I do have an opinion about the best policies).

This work of mine is in the form of a nearly completed book which I would like to share with the "official" teachers and doers of macroeconomics within our Universities and Government establishments. I am not interested in any financial reward and in fact expect to have to have some heavy expences in order to properly express these ideas, but it will be worthwhile.

Why is this idea important?

The subject of macroeconomics is treated today as if it were inexact. Professors and teachers in the art of national government seem to think that there are no exact ways for it to be described and analysed. Even when it comes to the Government, the models that H.M. Treasury uses rely on the statistics of past behavour rather than the theoretical REASON for particular results following particular situations. Thus they replace technical considerations with behavoural ones, and the result is that their forecasts are inexact, illogical and wrong.

It is my contention that Macroeconomics is an exact science and I have been doing sufficient research and writing to be able to justify this claim. My methods are based on an engineering method that is logical and sufficiently simple as to not need a computer for it to be understood. Of course the development of it probably will need this device, but for basic education and realization of what our macroeconomic system REALLY comprises, all that is needed is a few reasonable and likely assumptions followed by some logical analysis. I use a model which is represented by each and either a diagram, a mechanical system, a set of equations and a matrix (see below).

My method is based on systems analysis and the limited mathematics used are related to Wessley Leontief's "Input-Output" matrix, as applied to the whole social system at large. This system is viewed from sufficiently far away so that the detailed microeconomics of our lives are unresolved (in scope) and we no longer "miss the wood for the trees". It is similar to the ideas used in gas properties (Boyles and Charles Laws of physics) where individual molecule behavour is averaged out and Brownian effects forgotten. Unfortunately for us, we are usually so close to the action, that we cannot separate ourselves from this kind of effect. By taking a detached engineering approach it is at last possible to avoud this past limitation and to beging to better appreciate how our system works. This kind of knowledge should be freely available just as in most other aspects of science.

The results of this style of analysis are superior to present methods since the whole of the social system is covered seamlessly, and one can see not only what is going on but exactly why. No other theoretical macroeconomic analysis has come anywhere near achieving these kinds of results. It is the method that I wish to "sell", not any particular national policy. I have a means for better understanding and not a political device for getting my way (even though I do have an opinion about the best policies).

This work of mine is in the form of a nearly completed book which I would like to share with the "official" teachers and doers of macroeconomics within our Universities and Government establishments. I am not interested in any financial reward and in fact expect to have to have some heavy expences in order to properly express these ideas, but it will be worthwhile.