We are Hanno Beck, Lindy Davies, Fred Foldvary, Mike O'Mara, Jeff Smith, and assorted volunteers, all dedicated to bringing you the news and views that make a difference in our species struggle to win justice, prosperity, and eco-librium.
China accused of stealth land grab over Mozambique’s great rice project.
This 2013 excerpt of The Ecologist, Nov 30, is by Cecilia Anesi and Andrea Fama.
When you visit the Xai-Xai rice project its sheer scale takes you aback. Black soil, perfectly ploughed, extends for miles until it touches the horizon.
Local NGOs allege that 80,000 people have been displaced by the project; that villages have been left as small islands of habitation surrounded by square kilometres of intensively farmed land where villagers can no longer grow food, or graze their cattle; that crops have been run over or ploughed under; that cemeteries have been despoiled to make way for new developments.
Most worrying of all, they say these impacts are set to multiply as the farming project expands into new territory. The same NGOs also accuse the project of being led with lack of consultation with local communities, and violations of the International Labour Organization’s convention 169 which protects the rights of indigenous peoples.
As with many things in Africa, hard facts are difficult to come by. The project enveloped a massive portion of land, taking it from poor people most of whom had never heard the term ‘land rights’. The Chinese company that reaped the rewards, like a hostile alien invasion, has ‘conquered’ — dismissing any doubt regarding its right to be there. But it is the Mozambique Government that has allowed this to take place – and even encouraged it.
While dedicating all the project area to monocultural intensive farming might satisfy Southern Mozambique’s rice demand, it will certainly not solve the problems of hunger in Xai-Xai district. A partial solution could lie in allowing local farmers to continue using the machambas close to the villages, while contracting local farmers to work on Wanbao’s rice production project.
Ed. Notes: It’s an all too common occurrence: the powerful take land from the weak. Looking deeper, powerful locals and powerful outsiders collude to get what they want, the weak be damned. Haven’t we seen enough yet? Perhaps a more just system would be for the powerful to rent the land from the weak. Then the weak would be compensated, the powerful would acknowledge and perform their responsibilities, and the land would be put to its most productive use.
It’s not the morphine, it’s the size of the cage: Rat Park experiment upturns conventional wisdom about addiction
A 2013 excerpt of garry’s subposthaven, Spt 13.
About the rats in a cage who can self-administer morphine who get addicted to the stuff, and then just hit that lever until they die. A seemingly keystone argument in the war against drugs. But there’s another model: drugs do not cause addiction, living conditions do. Laboratory rats kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to a self-injection apparatus, show only that severely distressed animals, like severely distressed people, will relieve their distress pharmacologically if they can.
Rat Park housing colony, 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage, had 16–20 rats of both sexes, an abundance of food, balls and wheels for play, and enough space for mating and raising litters. Rats who had been forced to consume morphine hydrochloride for 57 consecutive days were brought to Rat Park and given a choice between plain tap water and water laced with morphine. For the most part, they chose the plain water. Control groups of rats isolated in small cages consumed much more morphine in this and several subsequent experiments.
Rats that are born into extreme conditions in small cages are clearly more likely to self-medicate.
The results are catastrophic for the simplistic idea that one use of a drug inevitably hooks the user by rewiring their brain. When Alexander’s rats were given something better to do than sit in a bare cage they turned their noses up at morphine because they preferred playing with their friends and exploring their surroundings to getting high.
Perhaps it’s time the war on drugs becomes a war on the existence of poverty? It’s not about the drugs. It’s about the social environment in which we live.
Ed. Notes: A big part of social conditions is the size of our space. Crowding many people into small spaces happens when those people are poor, of course, but also when space is limited. Who limits space? Speculators do, when they withhold locations from productive use. And cities do, when they rely on taxes upon sales and income and buildings and so let lots lie vacant and buildings remain abandoned.
To motivate both calculating speculators and dull-witted cities, reform the flow of public revenue. Don’t let governments tax anything willy-nilly but require them to first recover the values that society generates before trying to tax anything else. What values does the mere presence of society generate? Those would be the values of locations. Levy a land tax or require Land Dues. Then owners will quit keeping land under-utiliized and to afford the charge get busy and develop their sites or sell to others. To increase public revenue, cities too will sell-then-tax or lease public land.
All that activity will increase the supplies of both land and buildings. Plus, the construction of buildings and filling some of them with shops and stores will increase job opportunity, raise wages, and give poor people the chance to climb into prosperity. In a society of prosperous people following fair economic rules, people will feel more worthy and hence less likely to need to escape via drugs.
The Best, Brightest, and Least Productive? Are too many people choosing careers in finance – and, more specifically, in trading, speculating, and other allegedly “unproductive” activities?
This 2013 excerpt of Project Syndicate, Spt 20, is by Robert J. Shiller of Yale University, co-creator of the Case-Shiller Index of US house prices, and author of Irrational Exuberance.
In the United States, 7.4% of total compensation of employees in 2012 went to people working in finance and insurance. The share is even higher among the most educated and accomplished people, whose activities may be economically and socially useless, if not harmful.
In 2006, just before the financial crisis, 25% of graduating seniors at Harvard University, 24% at Yale, and a whopping 46% at Princeton were starting their careers in financial services. Those percentages have fallen somewhat since, but this might be only a temporary effect of the crisis.
From 1950 to 2006, credit intermediation (lending, including traditional banking) declined relative to “other finance” (including securities, commodities, venture capital, private equity, hedge funds, trusts, and other investment activities like investment banking). Moreover, wages in “other finance” skyrocketed relative to those in credit intermediation.
A significant amount of speculation and deal-making is pure rent-seeking — wasteful activity that achieves nothing more than enabling the collection of rents on items that might otherwise be free. Those in “other finance” often engage in such behavior.
Ed. Notes: You can rake in a lot of money without any more effort than flashing a winning smile if the money you rake in was already saved up by somebody else, somebody who trusts that you know what you’re doing when it comes to investing and have their best interests at heart. But taking a slice of the money that other people already earned and set aside is not the same thing as growing the pie, increasing output of goods and services, and making more money available for everybody. Growing the pie does benefit society in general while just shifting existing money around only creates winners and losers. But note which attracts more job-seekers. What sort of values must they have?
Bigger picture, how important would saving and investing and speculating be in a just economy? In a just economy, all the techno-progress going on would slash the cost of living. So to be comfy, you would not have to make as much money or save as much. As prices for goods and services drop, fall, and keep withering away, the surplus you saved up would go further and further.
What would stop inflation so the underlying deflation could come to the surface. Honest money — no more new money issued than new goods and services produced. To get bankers and politicians to quit devaluing the currency, you might have to allow consensual currencies to compete with them, such as community currencies on the left and gold-backed notes on the right. As more people switch to the currency they prefer, the bankers and politicians would have to rein in their profligate lending and spending just to keep people using their notes and coins.
Digging deeper still, of course it’d help to gather up all the “rents” — all the money that society spends for the nature and privileges it uses — and route them thru the public treasury and back out again as a Citizen’s Dividend. That’d leave no piles of money lying around for the spendthrift to use as collateral and none to lure the materialistic into socially useless careers. But they’d be getting a CD, too, so maybe they could learn to love the beauty in life.
Life could be so much simpler and fair with implemented geonomics.
This 2013 excerpt of the UK’s Telegraph, Nov 27, is by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.
American scientists have made an unsettling discovery. Crop farming across the Prairies since the late 19th Century has caused a collapse of the soil microbia that holds the ecosystem together. The soils currently found throughout the region bear little resemblance to their pre-agricultural state.
There has never before been a metagenomic analysis of this kind and on this scale. Professor Fierer said “soil microbes play a key role and we can’t just keep adding fertilizers.”
Academics from South Africa’s Witwatersrand University fear that we are repeating the mistakes of past civilisations, over-exploiting the land until it goes beyond the point of no return, and leads to a vicious circle of famine, and then social disintegration.
Entitled “Dust to Dust”, the paper said 1pc of global land is being degraded each year, defined as a 70pc loss of the top soil.
Once the top soil crosses a crucial threshold, the recovery rate plunges. Chemicals can keep crop yields high for a while but the complex ecology beneath is being abused further. Yields have already fallen 8pc across Africa as a whole.
This comes as China and emerging Asia switch to an animal protein diet, replicating the pattern seen in Japan and Korea as they became rich. As a rule of thumb it takes 4kg-8kg of grains in animal feed to produce 1kg of meat.
The East side of Magdascar has been destroyed by slash and burn deforestation, perhaps irreversbily in any human time horizon. Iceland’s Norse settlers turned their green and partly forested island into a Nordic desert in the 10th Century. They have yet to restore the fragile soil a thousand years later, despite careful husbandry.
The Sumerian civilisation that first pioneered cereal farming in the Tigris and Euphrates was almost certainly destroyed by soil erosion and over-cultivation. The Gilgamesh epic describes tracts of cedar forest in Iraq before it was cut down for the timber trade around 2,600 BC.
The story is usually the same, whether for the lowland Maya central America, or the Khmer Empire of Angkor, or Easter Island, recounted by Jared Diamond in “Collapse”. Once the hillside trees are cut down, water flows are disturbed. It seems that a climate shock is the often the coup de grace, pushing them over the edge.
There have been counter-episodes. Yacouba Sawadogo, “the man who stopped the desert”, began to revive the ancient zai technique to stop soil erosion on his little farm in Burkina Faso. It involved digging smal holes and filling them with compost and tree seeds to catch the seasonal rains, recreating a woodland of 20 hectares in the arid Sahel. Then local officials expropriated the land.
Ed. Notes: Factory farmers — people pasting chemicals onto global soil — must know they’re doing something wrong, otherwise they would not demand limited liability. Perhaps government should get out of the business of limiting the liability of people doing damage merely to amplify their profit. While at it, government could also quit its corporate welfare that feeds the giantism in business, as do subsidies to agri-business. Instead, government could use surplus public revenue (from the recovered value of land and resources) to fund a dividend to the citizenry. Shrink down the size of polluters, and raise up the size of citizens, and then it becomes a lot easier to win these political battles.
This 2013 excerpt of Atlantic Cities, Spt 11, is by Emily Badger.
The city council in the California city of Richmond, pop. 105,000 with a Green Party mayor, narrowly voted to become the only municipality in the US to seriously consider using eminent domain to seize underwater mortgages from the investors who currently hold them. The city would not seize the properties themselves – as more typically happens in eminent domain cases – but would use the power to essentially purchase the mortgages at their current market value (against the wishes of the banks that hold them).
The median price of homes in town has dropped to less than half of what it was at the height of the housing boom. And the city has estimated that about 51 percent of its homeowners are underwater. Richmond’s unemployment and poverty rates are high.
Richmond CA would ultimately sell the restructured mortgages to new investors at rates that would keep the current residents in their homes.
Every other local government that’s been tempted by this idea has ultimately abandoned it in the face of growing pressure from the banking industry, realtor groups, and even the federal government.
Banks and the securities industry have threatened that no one will give credit to cities that show they’re willing to seize property like this. And the Federal Housing Finance Agency has said it may take legal action against cities that try the tactic and stop lending to would-be homeowners who live there.
Ed. Notes: If the city does stand up to the realtors, bankers, and politicians, it can still win, if it turns Richmond into a highly desirable place. That the city can do by making itself into an enterprise zone. And that any city can do by de-taxing buildings, sales, and earnings. Instead, the city would recover the value of locations. It would charge rent to landowners (a tax or fee or dues, etc). To pay the charge, owners would develop their land and the city would prosper. Everybody wants to do business in a prosperous city, even realtors and bankers who had been angry opponents.
These 2013 excerpts on public revenue progress are from the UK press:
(1) The Guardian, Spt 13, on alternatives by Phillip Inman, economics correspondent;
(2) Express and Star or the Shropshire Star, Spt 14, and
(3) The Telegraph, Spt 15, on GB Business Secretary, by Tim Ross and Patrick Hennessy;
(4) Property Week, Spt 16, on LibDems by Rhiannon Bury;
(5) Financial Times, perhaps the world’s foremost business publication, Spt 27, on the perfect tax by Merryn Somerset Webb, editor-in-chief of MoneyWeek;
(6) Tax Research, Spt 30, on a joint letter by Richard Murphy;
(7) Financial Times, again, Nov 22, on the old can saving the young by Chris Cook; and
(8) ResPublica, undated but probably late Nov, on solving housing woes by David Fagleman.
Alternative to Council Tax Freeze is Out There
We are repeatedly suckered by the easy riches to be gained from joining the property pyramid scheme at an early stage. We need a brake on the investment bloodlust that overtakes buyers and sellers when house price inflation gets going. A property boom is about persuading the next generation of buyers to pay inflated prices in the expectation they will become super-creditworthy borrowers.
A tax on land, subsuming council tax, would force us all to pay a little of the inflationary gain each year from rising land prices in the form of a tax. In most land tax schemes, the money is used to reduce income tax and transaction taxes like stamp duty. This means the only losers would be those people who rely on rental income and rising prices for their standard of living.
A land tax promotes many good things. To limit property inflation we would all be in favour of new building. It would also encourage investment in more productive assets, like start-up companies, manufacturing businesses and export-led services firms.
Vince Cable, the UK Business Secretary, said the Government should look at plans for a land value tax.
Vince Cable said there were many potential problems with the idea, which taxes land itself rather than the property or people on it — but told a fringe event at the Liberal Democrat Party Conference the idea should be examined.
He said it was one of the options “floating around at quite a high level”.
How a Levy Based on Location Values could be the Perfect Tax
What gives a piece of land its value? Why is a 500 sq ft spot in London worth more than 500 acres of land in Angus? The value of a bit of land is not in the land itself but in the location of that land. And what gives the location value? That comes down to what is going on around it. Think good transport links, good schools (a house in the UK by a good school is worth anything from 5 to 20 per cent more than one near a bad school), hospitals, and the infrastructure to provide jobs.
If it is the state that gives land some of its value — clearly there is also value in non-state provided things, such as beauty and mineral rights — why is it that all of that value generally accrues to individual landowners, rather than to the state?
A land or location value tax (LVT) is levied not on the value of a property but on the value of the land that property sits on. It is not the bricks and mortar that make a flat in, for example, London’s One Hyde Park worth £6m-plus, it is the land on which it sits. So the LVT is just an attempt to collect the value of a property that has nothing to do with the actions of the owner and everything to do with the actions of the community.
In theory, it is not just an excellent tax but the best of all possible taxes. It discourages speculation and stops in its tracks the endless cycle of investment in land and property purely to rent it out. It promises no more property boom and bust. But, as it is not collected on any improvements made to land or to buildings on land, it does not discourage productive activity. Instead, it encourages people to bring idle land into use, to improve land they own and to be as productive as possible (when you have a pure LVT, earned income isn’t taxed at all).
Time for Land Value Taxation – in the Independent this morning
I am co-signatory of a letter in the Independent this morning that says:
The compulsory purchase of land banks proposed by Ed Miliband puts Labour’s housing policy in line with the supporters of land value tax (LVT). We believe that the present taxation system is flawed and unfair. When the value of UK land increases due to increased demand, the owners, including UK and international speculators, have done nothing to increase their personal wealth.
Renters gain nothing while their rents increase. The issue is how to make some of the increase in land value available to all. LVT taxes some of that increase in land value.
It should result in the abolition of the regressive council tax and business rates. It should cover all land, used and unused, so bringing land banks and empty homes into use, making investors look for income from renting, building and creating jobs to cover the tax. HMRC would spend less chasing tax-free money parked in overseas accounts; banks have yet to find a way of moving land into their vaults.
John Lipetz Coalition for Economic Justice
Richard Murphy Tax Research UK
Dr Stephen Battersby Pro-Housing Alliance
Rev Paul Nicolson Taxpayers Against Poverty, London N17
There is no doubt LVT has to be a part of any reasonable taxation policy in the future. That future should start now.
The Young are Doomed – and Only the Old can Save Them
If the only people who can afford to buy housing are the children of people who bought housing, it creates an unbridgeable divide between the haves and the have-nots. How about a land value tax levied on house prices? It would hit the older harder, the younger less, and cut dwelling costs by encouraging the cash-poor and asset-rich elderly to move into more modest accommodation.
Land Value Tax: The radical solution to the housing crisis
Land Value Tax, taking the form of an annual levy on the rental value of unimproved land, is the radical solution to the housing crisis. By taxing the value of land as opposed to the value of the property, land will be taxed whether it is built upon or not, which will encourage a more efficient use of land by making it economically efficient to develop where appropriate.
A surge of available land would lower the price, enabling smaller developers and housing associations (who in the face of declining government grants, are becoming increasingly dependent on income from construction), to join established house builders in providing a plentiful supply of affordable housing. Creating greater competition will see a reduction in rent and house prices, stabilising the housing market and creating a more equal relationship between landlords and tenants.
Either working simultaneously with reduced property taxes, or outright replacing the outdated and regressive Council Tax, Stamp Duty Levy, and Business Rates, a locally collected Land Value Tax would have to be phased in gradually and under the right blueprint.
This 2013 excerpt of CNBC, Nov 25, is by Diana Olick.
A lot of Asians are buying as an investment, but their kids are going to school here, so kids live in the home. They are looking at it more as an investment in education also.
While American secondary schools and universities are a big draw for the majority of Chinese buyers in California, Chinese are also concerned about China’s political instability, inflation, even pollution. They are paying all-cash for real estate in California, using it as a safe-haven for their wealth.
More than 20,000 attended an opening in Irvine CA, according to developers. The vast majority of lookers were Asian. Hoping to cash in on this new wave of investors, the builders are incorporating multigenerational floor plans and even Feng Shui designs.
The homes range from the mid-$700,000s to well over $1 million.
While no one would say specifically why certain families were shying away from the media, some alluded to the fact that many of the buyers don’t want any questions about where the cash is coming from. Some are buying multiple homes as investments, while others are moving their families to the U.S., intending to stay at least until their children graduate from college.
Ed. Notes: So Americans spend their money on cheap Chinese imports then the insider Chinese spend that money on pricey American homes-plus-home-sites. Americans think they’re saving money buying cheaper goods but actually they’re pushing up land values. Land has a way of always absorbing economic advantages.
Of course pricier land would not matter to buyers and citizens if they also had to pay Land Dues or a land tax or land-use fee or deed fee. Having to pay such a charge would make a bad investment for speculators, so they’d shy away and the price of land and homes would not inflate.
Further, such a charge would suck high land values into the public treasury. Ideally the government would spend the funds in ways that benefit society better than now how banks and other lenders spend the funds. Government could cut its counterproductive taxes, or subsidize a program that a majority might want such as socialized medicine, or pay citizens a dividend, or actually do all three, the value of sites and resources being so sky high.
Food shortage? Who says? One-third of food worldwide gets wasted.
A 2013 excerpt of the AP, Spt 11.
The U.N. food agency says one-third of all food produced in the world gets wasted, amounting to a loss of $750 billion a year.
The Rome-based Food and Agricultural Organization said that food in developing countries is wasted mostly due to poor harvesting techniques, while in high-income areas the primary cause of waste is careless consumer behavior.
The report said food waste hurts the environment by causing unnecessary carbon emissions, extra water consumption, and the reduction of biodiversity as farming takes over more land. The most serious areas of waste are of cereals in Asia and meat in wealthy regions and Latin America.
Ed. Notes: Hungry people, obviously, could use that food. They’d be happy to take it off the producers’ hands. If the hungry had more money, like getting a Citizen’s Dividend, then they could create some demand for that surplus food.
On the producer side, what’s needed is owner occupancy. An absentee owner getting government subsidies might not care about wasting some harvest — if he’s not there to see what’s happening, it’s hard for him to care. But an owner occupant not getting subsidized who had to work the land himself would have every incentive to put to good use every bushel of the harvest.
So how can we increase owner occupancy? We can charge land owners rent (or tax the land or institute land dues). When owners must pay rent, they lose the reason to keep land that they rent out to tenants; there’s no longer any reason to be a middle man. So the owners sell out, often to former tenants, and at prices that the former farm worker can afford. This geonomic recipe has worked before and can work again.
This 2013 excerpt of Op-Ed New, Nov 24, is by Fred Harrison, a graduate of University College, Oxford, where he read Politics, Philosophy & Economics.
How much does society spend for the nature it uses? For the land and resources? In the jargon, how much “ground rent” is produced in the economy? There is no answer in the economic literature.
But if America was a tax-free zone, the tax base would become this natural rent. People would use the money to bid up the price of locations when they buy homes and sellers would jack up their asking price to the greatest amount anyone would be willing to pay. In the US in 2013, tax revenue was $5.3tn (GDP: $16.2tn).
How much of a nation’s revenue currently is visible as land rent? This is rent that is not collected by government. The prudent estimate is that rents in private pockets amount to about 20% of national income.
If we take a random selection of 10 rich nations, ranging from Australia through the US to Sweden, Germany, and Japan, the average tax-take as a percent of GDP is 37%. If we add to this the rent that is not collected by government, of around 20%, we find that rent exceeds 50% of national income.
This first approximation of rent needs to be adjusted.
1. Taxes distort total income. They encourage the
- Under-use of urban land (which artificially raises rents). and they
- motivate behavior that damages the environment, as when polluters do not have to pay for dumping waste into the atmosphere (which artificially reduces rents).
2. A small part of tax revenue may actually fall on wage earners, rather than being shifted (ultimately) onto rent. People with no bargaining power are particularly vulnerable.
Such considerations add to, and subtract from, rent. Further assessment is required, but the outcome would not significantly modify the conservative estimate that rent is about 50% of total income. This is more than sufficient to cover existing government financial commitments.
On what terms would that revenue be raised? Through the land market, the people themselves negotiate the rents they are able to pay for the use of services available at each location. By this process of free negotiation, who paid, and how much they paid, would be settled by citizens, not politicians or the servants of the State.
Want a real overhaul of the tax code? Here’s an elegant way to reduce inequality and mitigate poverty — in one tax.
This 2013 excerpt of Salon, Nov 22, is by Jesse Myerson. It was republished in Alternet.
At present, neither party advocates the tax code so elegant it can reduce inequality, mitigate poverty, stimulate productivity, prevent asset price bubbles, stem community-shredding gentrification and drain the distended Wall Street cabal of its ill-gotten gains – in just one tax.
Land value. If we want a real overhaul/simplification of the tax code, the way to do it is to tax land value. It might be the only tax we need. No sales tax. No income tax. No payroll tax to fill a Social Security trust fund. No corporate income tax that, as we can plainly see, offshores profits. No need to tax labor and industry at all. Just tax the stuff that humans had nothing to do with creating, and therefore have no basis to claim ownership over at all. You’ll find that almost all of it is “owned” by the fabled 1 percent.
And boy are they sucking a lot of money out of it. By far the most valuable asset form in the U.S. is real estate, and the majority of that is the value of the land, as distinct from the value of the human-made buildings. Economist Michael Hudson has assessed that the land value of New York City alone exceeds that of all of the plant and equipment in the entire country, combined. No owner put any enterprise or cost into producing the land’s value – they simply bought it when it was cheap, sold it when it was dear, and waited for the check. “They” are the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector, and they capture 40 percent of the United States’ profits, despite the complete passivity of their profit-accumulation method.
Not only would a land value tax (LVT) drastically shrink that Wall Street bloat, it would have prevented the housing bubble in the first place. Land, after all, was the speculative commodity at play, not the houses themselves, which, as “Arrested Development” incisively suggested, were a bunch of crap. With an LVT, the cookie-cutter McMansions in suburban housing developments would only be worth the cost of their cheap paneling, artificial marble and the rest of it. Without one, they were wrongly assessed as being worth the value of the land they stood upon, which speculators bid up and up and up.
An LVT would stimulate urban property development without incurring the socially catastrophic ethnic displacement pattern we call “gentrification.” As that noted far-left rag the Economist notes, “Property developers … would be less inclined to hoard undeveloped land if they had to pay an annual levy on it.” Despite this, the new developments wouldn’t push rents up throughout the rest of the neighborhood, because the increased land value would be taxed. The rest of the apartment buildings in the area didn’t get any nicer. So why should they cost more? Urban land, scarce by definition, is very valuable. There is no reason to let a small group of rich landlords extract its value, when what created the value are parks, subways, local restaurants, and other things the landlords didn’t provide.
Nothing could simplify and demystify the taxation experience for Americans like making sure that the vast majority of us who don’t own the resources, who don’t collect rent and capital gains, who have to work to get our paychecks, wouldn’t ever have to mark April 15 on the calendar again.
The amount of revenue that can be raised by taxing the land is huge. Enough, for example, to support truly liberatory social spending, like a universal basic income, without risking inflation.
Ed. Notes: The reform to raising public revenue can get even simpler still. If you don’t like taxes at all, don’t use any. You can still recover the socially-generated value of land. You can charge land-use fees or require Land Dues, plus lease public land at full market value. You can record deeds and titles at full market value of the location, too. No need to tax.
Plus, land is not the only thing of value that was not created by anyone providing their labor or capital. There’s also government-granted privilege, such as corporate charters, patents and copyrights, utility franchises, and the power to print new money. These little official pieces of paper don’t require work (excluding lobbying) nor investment (unless you mean campaign contributions). Charge full market value — that’s the principle: quid pro quo — for those little pieces of paper, too, as you did to leases and deeds. Your public treasury will be stuffed to bursting.
And to make it yet simpler for everyone, collect the rents from owners monthly and pay the citizenry a dividend monthly from surplus public revenue. Most people would come out a little ahead. The poor would really do well. And those who’ve been calling the shots for so long would finally pay for the privilege of having lorded it over everyone else for so long.
These three 2013 excerpts about the wealth gaps are from Reuters: (1) Spt 10, on the elite by Paul Wiseman and (2) Spt 17, on the poor by Lucia Mutikani, Caroline Humer, and Susan Heavey.
Top 1% Took Record share of 2012 US Income
The income gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America widened to a record last year.
The top 1 percent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 percent of household income in 2012, their largest share in Internal Revenue Service figures going back a century.
U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. But until last year, the top 1 percent’s share of pre-tax income had not yet surpassed the 18.7 percent it reached in 1927.
Incomes of the richest Americans might have surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January.
Last year, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose 19.6 percent compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.
Since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 percent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices: 95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent.
That compares with a 45 percent share for the top 1 percent in the economic expansion of the 1990s and a 65 percent share from the expansion that followed the 2001 recession.
The top 10 percent haven’t done badly, either. Last year, they captured 48.2 percent of income, another record. Their biggest previous take was 46.3 percent in 1932.
The top 1 percent of American households had income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000.
Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist: Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite.
U.S. Poverty Rises Despite Economic Recovery
The number of U.S. residents living in poverty edged up to 46.5 million last year. Although the number of people in poverty went up from 46.2 million in 2011, the national poverty rate was unchanged at 15 percent. The poverty threshold in 2012 was an income of $23,492 for a family of four.
The recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s has been marked by a jump in stock prices to record highs, aided in part by the Federal Reserve’s ultra easy monetary policy.
While the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gained 16 percent on a total return basis last year, including reinvested dividends, the Census Bureau report showed median household income slipped to $51,017 from of $51,100 in 2011.
Although the bulk of the more than 8 million jobs lost during the downturn have been recouped, many of the jobs have been in services industries such as retail and restaurants that typically do not pay well.
About 16.1 million children and 3.9 million people aged 65 years and older were living in poverty last year. The uninsured rate for children in poverty was 12.9 percent compared with 7.7 percent for children not in poverty, the Census found.
Ed. Notes: The rich don’t get richer by working harder or smarter but by owning stocks of companies that own prime land and modern capital; those companies get subsidies from the government and their payouts get tax loopholes. Eventho’ it’s not fair, it is instructive: it shows how to end poverty.
That is, quit the corporate welfare and (perhaps surprisingly to some) quit the taxes on earnings. Instead uses taxes or fees or dues or leases to recover the worth of Earth, the annual rental value of sites and resources. Redirect that — all of society’s spending for nature — into the public treasury then back out again as dividends to members of society.
Then all remaining fortunes won’t be gifts from the state but truly earned and, more importantly, poverty will be no more. The dividend will provide a basic income and the combination of no taxes on earnings with a hefty charge for owning land, especially downtown locations, will greatly expand the opportunities for investment and employment. A wealth gap will remain, but it won’t be much; citizens at both ends of the spectrum will be able to see each other.
An alternative to the local property tax, the land value tax offers certain benefits over the economically inefficient property tax. However, its novelty and legal and political challenges continue to make it an elusive option at this time.
A 2013 excerpt of the Eye on Housing, Nov 18, by the NA of Home Builders.
According to numerous polls, the most hated tax is the local property tax. The property tax is economically inefficient because it taxes the value of improvements, which acts as a tax on economic development. One alternative to the property tax is the land value tax.
Local governments in New York, Pennsylvania and Hawaii have used it. In addition, twenty-five nations use some form of the land value tax.
The land value tax provides an incentive for development. Economists Oates and Schwab find a positive association between adoption of land value taxation and building activity in Pittsburgh. Under a split-rate system, the higher the land tax in relation to the improvements tax, the more building activity occurs.
Property taxes are the largest single source of revenue for state and local governments, accounting for over one-third of all revenue. The county of Hawaii abolished the land value tax in 2002. This June the state of Connecticut signed into law a pilot program letting three municipalities implement a land value tax.
Reprinted in RIS Media, the leader in real estate information.
Ed. Notes: Real builders should like a tax shift that stimulates construction. It’s those who’re speculating in land, withholding prime sites from beneficial use, are the ones who may be opposed. For everyone else, a tax or fee or dues on land could increase how much the landowner must pay. But to assuage that, the collecting government could return a hefty portion of the raised revenue to residents as a monthly dividend. It’s their money, any way. It’s the presence of society as a whole, not the ownership of individuals, that generates the value of land. Thus, locational value is a common wealth; we should treat it as such. Then builders would get more business and, more importantly, they’d be building in a better society, where more people prosper and enjoy life as it’s meant to be lived.
These two 2013 excerpts on public pension reform — the first about the problem, the second about the solution — are from (1) USA Today, Nov 18, by their Editorial Board and (2) the Toronto Star, Nov 4, by Frank deJong, head of EarthShare Canada.
Rein In Reckless Public Pensions
Excessive retiree benefits — which account for 20% of San Jose’s $1.1 billion budget, for instance — drain governments of the money needed for education, housing, parks and public safety.
Estimates for the total shortfall of public pensions start at about $700 billion. In 2011, the Congressional Budget Office said that $2 trillion to $3 trillion was more accurate. Even a long bull market won’t make the problem go away.
Detroit is Exhibit A for municipal irresponsibility. It negotiated generous pensions, even overpaid in some cases, as the city began its long descent into bankruptcy. Illinois tops most lists of states in trouble.
Fueling taxpayers’ anger is that they are financing benefits no longer available to most private-sector workers. Some state and local government workers can retire in their 50s, after 33 years of service, and continue drawing the same income.
An Ontario pension plan, as suggested by Premier Kathleen Wynne, is warranted. Too many seniors in this province don’t receive sufficient private or public pension benefits.
However, instead of raising taxes on incomes, sales or business (dead-weight taxes that damage the economy), the new pension plan should be financed by capturing some of the unearned income that accrues to Ontario’s monopoly-owned assets like land and resources — wealth that economists call “economic rent.”
Economic rent is revenue with no corresponding cost of production. It is wealth belongs to all citizens by birthright, which makes it an ideal way to finance a pension plan.
Our seniors, who spent their working lives building Ontario, should receive a “senior’s dividend” — their share of the public wealth generated by the commons.
This 2013 excerpt of the Los Angeles Times, Spt 9, is by The Times editorial board.
Federal efforts to protect growers of sugar beets and sugar cane epitomize everything that’s wrong with U.S. farm programs. At times they’ve artificially raised the price of sugar, costing consumers billions of dollars; at other times they’ve stuck taxpayers with the bill for the surplus sugar production they’ve promoted.
Sweeteners are ubiquitous in processed foods, and sugar is the most popular by far. There are two primary sources in the United States: sugar beets and sugar cane, which is grown only in Hawaii, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida.
Like the rest of the agriculture industry, beet and cane growers enjoy considerable protection from the federal government that’s not contingent on their incomes. But while other farmers are typically offered subsidized crop insurance (taxpayers cover roughly 60% of the cost) and guarantees against steep reductions in revenue, beet and cane farmers are also protected by import and production quotas that limit supply, deter competition, and inflate prices.
When unusually big harvests in the United States and Mexico (which faces no import quota on its subsidized products) push sugar prices below the target set by Washington, growers unload surplus sugar onto the federal government in lieu of repaying their federal loans, forcing Washington to sell the sweetener below cost to ethanol producers. Both of those things are happening this year.
U.S. farm program benefits flow overwhelmingly to the largest — and, consequently, most durable — agribusinesses; 10% of the farm operations collect 60% of the $23.5 billion in annual farm subsidies.
Sugar growers gave more than $4 million to members of Congress in the 2012 campaign. The largest buyers of sugar — bakers and confectioners — contributed about $250,000.
The unusually high farm profits in recent years have given Congress a golden opportunity to try to wean agribusiness from sugar subsidies and other market-distorting protections.
Ed. Notes: The politicians giving public money to the well-connected who don’t need it may seem wrong, but it is the role of government, and has been forever. Trying to reduce the subsidies or redirect them to the “right” recipients has never succeeded. What’s needed is a total overhaul, a transformation of government, a paradigm shift in how we see ourselves and our rulers. We need to see ourselves as worthy of spending our money, thank you very much.
That is, we’d each get a share of the common wealth, of surplus public revenue. With this extra income, farmers would not need any other public assistance. Their share would go further in the countryside where the cost of living is much lower. And they could adopt the strategy of selling directly to consumers, cutting out the middleman — those are the corporations who make the most off of a family’s food budget, not the farmer, and certainly not the lowly farmworker.
So say “no” to all subsidies, abolish them, root out the very concept of bribing politicians and winning handouts as a decent way of conducting business. Replace all that papered-over dishonesty with the share-Earth ethic in which each member of society gets a fair share of Earth’s worth — saving billions in pubic subsidies.
Jobless Growth, the 21st Century Condition in Poor Nations
This 2013 excerpt of the IPS, Nov 25, is by Samuel Oakford.
Though the percentage of people living in extreme poverty (less than 1.25 dollars per day) has declined in LDCs, their numbers have increased due to population growth.
While the economies of LDCs expanded yearly by over 7.5 percent in the decade before the 2008 financial crisis, employment growth per annum stood at just 2.9 percent between 2000-2012, barely ahead of the population growth rate of 2.3 percent.
If high growth couldn’t buoy the job market during boom years, a period of slower increases will require specifically catered policies to spur employment.
In Namibia, the government has set up a national mining company, hoping to replicate Chile’s CODELCO and not the bloated state-run enterprises of post-independence Africa.
If Chile is a model for mineral exporters, garment producers look to Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore, all of which began by manufacturing textiles before graduating to more complicated consumer goods and electronics.
Ed. Notes: As usual, the wannabe problem-solvers want to tax the businesses that have succeeded, which reduces their success and does not necessarily create success for anyone else. It’s like the swing of the pendulum from leftwing mistakes to rightwing mistakes and back again. How can well-meaning people be so blind to the land? All three of the Asian examples cited — Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore — first implemented land reform. Not taking land away from large landholders but by taxing the value of land, so owners sold off their excess, usually to their tenant farmers, at prices the landless could afford. The thousands of new family-owned farms is what founded the bedrock of the Asian Tiger miracle economies, and its a reform that could work anywhere. Longer ago, it also worked in Denmark, California, Australia, and New Zealand. Look where their economies are today!
a way to connect the dots. Making the cyber rounds is “The Cavernous Divide” by Scott Klinger, from AlterNet (posted March 21): “As the number of billionaires in the world expands, so does the number of those in poverty.” Duh. The yawning income gap is not news. Nearly every issue of our quarterly digest carries a similar quote. Yet the connection was worked out long ago by one of America’s greatest thinkers, Henry George, who labeled his masterpiece, Progress and Poverty. Techno- and socio-advances always enrich few and impoverish many. Yet progress also pushes up location values – the geonomic insight (is Silicon Valley cheaper now or more expensive?). Instead of taxing income, sales, or buildings, society could collect those values of sites, resources, EM spectrum, and ecosystem services via fees and dues, which would lower the income ceiling, and instead of lavishing corporate welfare, pay out the recovered revenue via dividends, which would jack up the income floor. Dots connected.
a scientific look at how we divvy up the work and the wealth, how some of us end up with too much or too little effort or reward. That’s partly due to Ricardo’s Law of Rent, showing how wasteful use of Earth cuts wages. And it’s partly due to how a society’s elite runs government around like water boys, dishing out subsidies and tax breaks. While geonomists look political reality right in the eye, without blinking, conventional economists flinch. When Paul Volcker, ex-chief of the Federal Reserve, moved on to a cushy professorship at Princeton cum book contract, the crush of deadlines bore down. So Volcker asked a junior associate to help with the book. The guy refused, explaining that giving serious consideration to policy would ruin his academic career. The ex-Fed chief couldn’t believe it and asked the department chair if truly that were the case. That head honcho pondered the question then replied no, not if he only does it once. And economics was AKA political economy!
a new field of study offered in place of economics, as astronomy replaced astrology and chemistry replaced alchemy. Conventional economics, in which GNP can do well while people suffer, is a bit too superstitious for my renaissance upbringing. If I’m to propitiate unseen forces, it won’t be inflation or “the market”; let it be theEgyptian cat goddess. At least then we’d have fewer rats. Meanwhile, believing in reason leads to a new policy, also christened geonomics. That’s the proposal to share (a kind of management, the “nomics” part) the worth of Mother Earth (the “geo” part). If our economies are to work right, people need to see prices that tell the truth. Now taxes and subsidies distort prices, tricking people into squandering the planet. Using land dues and rent dividends instead lets prices be precise, guiding people to get more from less and thereby shrink their workweek. More free time ought to make us happy enough to evolve beyond economics, except when nostalgic for superstition.
of interest to Dave Lakhani, President Bold Approach (Mar 8) and Matt Ozga (Jan 29): “I write for the Washington Square News, the student run newspaper out of New York University. Geonomics seems like it has great significance, especially in this area. When was geonomics developed, and by whom?”
About 1982 I began. Two years later, Chilean Dr Manfred Max-Neef offered the term geonomics for Earth-friendly economics. In the mid-80s, a millionaire founded a Geonomics Institute on Middlebury College campus in Vermont re global trade. In the 1990s, CNBC cablecast a show, Geonomics, on world trade as it benefits world traders. My version of geonomics draws heavily from the American Henry George who wrote Progress & Poverty (1879) and won the mayoralty of New York but was denied his victory by Tammany Hall (1886). He in turn got lots from Brits David Ricardo, Adam Smith, and the French physiocrats of the 1700s. My version differs by focusing not on taxation but on the flow of rents for sites, resources, sinks, and government-granted privileges. Forgoing these trillions, we instead tax and subsidize, making waste cheap and sustainability expensive. To quit distorting price, replace taxes with “land dues” and replace subsidies with a Citizens Dividend.
Matt: “This idea of sharing rents sounds, if not explicitly socialist, at least at odds with some capitalist values (only the strong survive & prosper, etc). Is it fair to say that geonomics has some basis in socialist theory?”
A closer descriptor would be Christian. Beyond ethics into praxis, Alaska shares oil rent with residents, and they’re more libertarian than socialist. While individuals provide labor and capital, no one provides land while society generates its value. Rent is not private property but public property. Sharing Rent is predistribution, sharing it before an elite or state has a chance to get and misspend it, like a public REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) paying dividends to its stakeholders – a perfectly capitalist model. What we should leave untaxed are our sales, salaries, and structures, things we do produce.
the policy that the earth’s natural patterns suggests. Use the eco-system’s self-regulating feedback loops as a model. What then needs changing? Basically, the flow of money spent to own or use Earth (both sites and resources) must visit each of us. Our agent, government, exists to collect this natural rent via fees and to disburse the collected revenue via dividends. Doing this, we could forgo taxes on homes and earnings and subsidies of either the needy or the greedy. For more, see our web site, our pamphlet of the title above, or any of our other lit pieces; ask for our literature list.
the study of the money we spend on the nature we use. When we pay that money to private owners, we reward both speculation and over-extraction. Robert Kiyosaki’s bestseller, Rich Dad’s Prophecy, says, “One of the reasons McDonald’s is such a rich company is not because it sells a lot of burgers but because it owns the land at some of the best intersections in the world. The main reason Kim and I invest in such properties is to own the land at the corner of the intersection. (p 200) My real estate advisor states that the rich either made their money in real estate or hold their money in real estate.” (p 141, via Greg Young) When government recovers the rents for natural advantages for everyone, it can save citizens millions. Ben Sevack, Montreal steel manufacturer, tells us (August 12) that Alberta, by leasing oil & gas fields, recovers enough revenue to be the only province in Canada to get by without a sales tax and to levy a flat provincial income tax. While running for re-election, provincial Premier Ralph Klein proposes to abolish their income tax and promises to eliminate medical insurance premiums and use resource revenue to pay for all medical expense for seniors. After all this planned tax-cutting and greater expense, they still expect a large budget surplus. Even places without oil and gas have high site values in their downtowns, and high values in their utility franchises. Recover the values of locations and privileges, displace the harmful taxes on sales, salaries, and structures, then use the revenue to fund basic government and pay residents a dividend, and you have geonomics in action.
close to the policy of the Garden Cities in England. Founded by Ebenezer Howard over a century ago, residents own the land in common and run the town as a business. Letchworth, the oldest of the model towns, serves residents grandly from bucketfuls of collected land rent (as does the Canadian Province of Alberta from oil royalty). A geonomic town would pay the rent to residents, letting them freely choose personalized services, and also ax taxes. Both geonomics and Howard were inspired by American proto-geonomist Henry George. The movement launched by Howard today in the UK advances the shift of taxes from buildings to locations. A recent report from the Town and Country Planning Association proposes this Property Tax Shift and their journal published research in the potential of land value taxation by Tony Vickers (Vol. 69, Part 5, 2000). (Thanks to James Robertson)
about the money we spend on the nature we use. It flows torrentially yet invisibly, often submerged in the price of housing, food, fuel, and everything else. Flowing from the many to the few, natural rent distorts prices and rewards unjust and unsustainable choices. Redirected via dues and dividends to flow from each to all, “rent” payments would level the playing field and empower neighbors to shrink their workweek and expand their horizons. Modeled on nature’s feedback loops, earlier proposals to redirect rent found favor with Paine, Tolstoy, and Einstein. Wherever tried, to the degree tried, redirecting rent worked. One of today’s versions, the green tax shift, spreads out of Europe. Another, the Property Tax Shift, activists can win at the local level, building a world that works right for everyone.
an answer to a rarely asked question. If price is a reward for production, why do we pay for land, never produced by any of us? What is land price a reward for? Good behavior? How much money do we spend on the nature we use? Who gets it? What do they do with it? (If you answer all these correctly, you’re not a genius but a geoist.) The worth of Earth is enough that were we to collect and share it, we could abolish taxes on the goods we do produce. For example, San Francisco’s Redefining Progress has calculated that Cali-fornia could abolish all state and local taxes were it to collect the values of resources and of using na-ture as a dump. By exorcising the profit motive from depletion and pollution, rent collection could replace bossy regulation. Economies could self-regulate, as the rest of the eco-system does. See how big problems yield to big answers when we ask the right questions?
the Great Green Tax Shift maxed out”
Economically, taxing pollution and depletion does reduce pollutants and extracts – and thus the tax base; plus such taxes are regressive, requiring a safety net. On the other hand, collecting site rent is progressive and generates a revenue surplus payable as a dividend to residents, which can serve as the safety net.
Environmentally, taxes on waste and extraction do not drive efficient use of land, as does getting site rent. Better settlement patterns do reduce extraction upstream and pollution downstream.
Politically, green fees have less impact if applied locally; local is where grassroots movements have more impact. Yet getting rent usually entails shifting the property tax (or charging user fees), the province of local jurisdictions; both mayors and city voters have been known to adopt a site-value tax.
Ethically, putting into practice “tax bads, not goods” skirts the issue of sharing Mother Earth which collecting rent confronts head on. Since nothing is fixed until it’s fixed right, ultimately, greens must lead humanity into geotopia where we all share the worth of Mother Earth.