LVTFan's Blog

The Land Questions: #29 -- Selling the Toll Roads

29. The states need money.  Should they sell their toll roads to private companies? 

A. Sure!  That would provide a nice pot of money that would help with this year's budget and next year's, and after that, we can leave the problem to a future group of legislators and a new governor!

B. Sure! The private sector will take better care of them and turn a profit to boot!

C. No.  The taxpayers paid for those roads to be built, and have a right to more control over them than would exist after privatization.

D. No. The taxpayers own that land, a unique right of way, and selling it off forever is irresponsible and wrong!

E. No. Our society -- any society -- is highly dependent on our infrastructure, and control over it must remain in the public sector.

F. No. Those highways are built on land that was bought or taken from individual property owners for the public good.  To turn them over to the private sector, for profit, would be wrong.

G.  No.  Those highways will increase in value over the coming decades and centuries, and should not become anyone's private property, at any price.  Both their economic value and the control over them belongs in the common sector.

H. No.  Even if it looks as if it might make sense for our generation, what of future generations?  Should we permit the privatization of a common asset they will likely be dependent on?

I. No. Future taxpayers will build more highways intersecting with these current tollroads, and increase their value; were these to be privatized, it would be the private corporation who would reap the benefit of that future public investment.

J. Your suggestions?

The Land Questions: #28: Coastal Homeowners Insurance

28. Private-sector insurance companies are raising their rates for waterfront or near-waterfront property, or refusing to renew policies in hurricane-prone areas.  States are stepping in to provide insurance of last resort.  How should this be financed?

A. It should be self-financing, with rates designed to cover 100% of the risks.  This might drive down the selling prices of the properties, but that is appropriate given the increased risks involved.

B. Taxpayers all over the state should subsidize the insurance rates, from taxes on wages

C. Taxpayers all over the state should subsidize the insurance rates, from taxes on sales

D. Taxpayers all over the state should subsidize the insurance rates, from taxes on their land values

E. Inland taxpayers should be taxed to pay for the subsidies to coastal propertyowners

F. Hotel and rental-car taxes should be used to pay for the subsidies to coastal homeowners and commercial property owners

G. Collect taxes in proportion to pollution which is producing slower-moving storms, which will have the effect of incentivizing reductions in that pollution

H. Your suggestions?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 28 -- Hume and Blackstone

The possession alone, and first possession, is supposed to convey property, when nobody else has any preceding claim and pretension. Many of the reasonings of lawyers are of this analogical nature, and depend on very slight connections of the imagination.

— DAVID HUME, Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Sec. III., Part 2, Essays, Vol. II., p. 190.

There is indeed some difference among the writers on natural law, concerning the reason why occupancy should convey this right (i. e., to the permanent property of the soil) . . . a dispute that savors too much of nice and scholastic refinement.

— BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, Book II., Chap. i, p. 8.

Earnings and findings -- earned and unearned income

Does the Single Tax discriminate between earned and unearned income?

It is the scientific way of doing what we have been feebly attempting to do in an unscientific way, that is, to distinguish between what Dr. Scott Nearing called "property income" and "services income," or between that form of wealth which is the result of individual effort in production and that which is purely the result of the collective effort of society; or between the two forms of wealth which Dr. Ellwood, of the University of Missouri, in a seemingly unwilling recognition of an unwelcome truth, calls "earnings" and "findings."

In the case of the great majority of us (whether as individuals or as partners in corporations) our incomes are so inextricably compounded of earnings and findings, of privilege income and service income, that it is hard for some of us to know whether we belong to the privileged or unprivileged classes, to the slave owners or the slaves, to the confiscators or the victims; and perhaps only those absolutely property less men at the bottom of the social scale can be said to have no share in the "findings" that spring from privilege. On the other hand it is equally true that all industry up to its highest strata, has to pay toll to privilege and provide those "findings" which distribute themselves with more or less inequality over almost the whole of society. How to distinguish between and separate these entirely different kinds of wealth is what all sincere sociologists and honest taxation commissioners have wanted to do and have hitherto failed in the doing.

If we take a handful of sand and a handful of iron filings and mix them thoroughly, and then set a man with the sharpest eyesight and the nimblest fingers to separate the particles, it will take him long to accomplish his task and he will never do it with more than an approximation to completeness. But apply a strong magnet to the mixture and the separation will be accomplished in ten minutes. Then see how the analogy applies to the economic problem in society. Let us imagine the return that should naturally flow to land in the form of rent to take the shape of blue coins made of steel. Let us fancy that the natural reward that goes to capital as interest takes the form of red coins made of wood. Finally let us figure the natural return to human service of all grades as being represented by white coins also made of wood. On examination it will be discovered that in the case of almost every member of society above the rank of the day laborer, his income is tri-colored or composed of all three coins. There are countless "captains of industry" among us who complacently assume their large incomes to be the rewards freely given by a free world in return for their invaluable services, who will be surprised to find how large a proportion of blue their income coins contain. There are multitudes of livers upon what they have called "interest" who will expect to find their coins red, who will be equally surprised to discover that they are almost entirely blue. To complete the parable, the taxation of land values will be like the application of the magnet which will draw away the blue steel coins in whatever stratum of society they may be found, and lay them aside for social purposes, being socially created wealth; leaving the red and white coins to be competed for in a world of free opportunity, without deduction or diminution by taxation or in any other way.

From The Single Tax Year Book (1917)

The Land Questions: #27 -- Financing a New Subway Line

27. A new subway line costs $2 billion.  Suppose that its construction increases the surrounding land values by $2 billion. (Assume 5 miles long, 10 stations, 0.5 mile radius, average lot size of 0.10 acre.   How should the new subway line be financed?

A. Taxes on sales of groceries, clothing, etc. within those 1/2 mile radius areas

B. Taxes on sales of groceries, clothing, etc., all over the city the subway line connects to

C. Taxes on sales of services within those 1/2 mile radius areas

D. Taxes on sales of services of all kinds, all over the city the subway line connects to

E. Taxes on wages of those working in those 1/2 mile radius areas

F. Taxes on wages all over the city the subway line connects to

G. Taxes on wages of those living within the 1/2 mile radius areas

H. Taxes on capital gains and dividends of those living within the 1/2 mile radius areas

I. Taxes on capital gains and dividends of those with residence anywhere in the city

J. Taxes on all real estate within those 1/2 mile radius areas

K. Taxes on all real estate, all over the city the subway line connects to

L. Taxes on just the buildings within those 1/2 mile radius areas

M. Taxes on all the buildings, all over the city the subway line connects to

N. Taxes on the land value within those 1/2 mile radius areas

O. Taxes on the land value, all over the city the subway line connects to

P. Transfer taxes on either or both of buyers and sellers whenever a property within the 1/2 mile radius is sold

Q. Transfer taxes on either or both of buyers and sellers whenever a property anywhere within the city is sold

R. An inheritance tax when a house or commercial property is transferred from a decedent to a survivor.

S. Your suggestions?

 

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 27 -- Rousseau

The first man who, having enclosed a tract of ground, bethought himself of saying, "This is mine," and found people silly enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars and murders, what miseries and horrors, would have been spared the human race, if some one had thrown down the fence and filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellows, "Do not listen to this impostor. You are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth are for all, and that the earth belongs to no one."

— JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU, Essay on the Origin of Inequality Among Men., Part II., p. 1.

Brief Statement of Single Tax Philosophy

This is from Joseph Dana Miller, the editor of the Single Tax Year Book (1917), and it is a concise statement which might help make clear why I think this such an important reform in the 21st century.

Men have a right to land because they cannot live without it and because no man made it. It is a free gift of nature, like air, like sunshine. Men ought not to be compelled to pay other men for its use. It is, if you please, a natural right, because arising out of the nature of man, or if you do not like the term, an equal right, equal in that it should be shared alike. This is no new discovery, for it is lamely and imperfectly recognized by primitive man (in the rude forms of early land communism) and lamely and imperfectly by all civilized communities (in laws of "eminent domain", and similar powers exercised by the State over land). It is recognized by such widely differing minds as Gregory the Great and Thomas Paine (the religious and the rationalistic), Blackstone and Carlyle (the legal and the imaginative). All points of view include more or less dimly this conception of the peculiar nature of land as the inheritance of the human race, and not a proper subject for barter and sale.

This is the philosophy, the principle. The end to be sought is the establishment of the principle -- equal right to land in practice. We cannot divide the land -- that is impossible. We do not need to nationalize it that is, to take it over and rent it out, since this would entail needless difficulty. We could do this, but there is a better method.

The principle, which no man can successfully refute or deny even to himself, having been stated, we come now to the method, the Single Tax, the taking of the annual rent of land -- what it is worth each year for use -- by governmental agency, and the payment out of this fund for those functions which are supported and carried on in common -- maintenance of highways, police and fire protection, public lighting, schools, etc. Now if the value of land were like other values this would not be a good method for the end in view. That is, if a man could take a plot of land as he takes a piece of wood, and fashioning it for use as a commodity give it a value by his labor, there would be no special reason for taxing it at a higher rate than other things, or singling it out from other taxable objects. But land, without the effort of the individual, grows in value with the community's growth, and by what the community does in the way of public improvements. This value of land is a value of community advantage, and the price asked for a piece of land by the owner is the price of community advantage. This advantage may be an excess of production over other and poorer land determined by natural fertility (farm land) or nearness to market or more populous avenues for shopping, or proximity to financial mart, shipping or railroad point (business centers), or because of superior fashionable attractiveness, (residential centers). But all these advantages are social, community-made, not a product of labor, and in the price asked for its sale or use, a manifestation of community-made value. Now in a sense the value of everything may be ascribed to the presence of a community, with an important difference. Land differs in this, that neither in itself nor in its value is it the product of labor, for labor cannot produce more land in answer to demand, but can produce more houses and food and clothing, whence it arises that these things cost less where population is great or increasing, and land is the only thing that costs more.

To tax this land at its true value is to equalize all people-made advantages (which in their manifestation as value attach only to land), and thus secure to every man that equal right to land which has been contended for at the outset of this definition.

From this reform flow many incidental benefits -- greater simplicity of government, greater certainty and economy in taxation, and increased revenues.

But its greatest benefit will be in the abolition of involuntary poverty and the rise of a new civilization. It is not fair to the reader of a definition to urge this larger conclusion, the knowledge of which can come only from a fuller investigation and the dawning upon his apprehension of the light of the new vision. But this conclusion follows as certainly as do the various steps of reasoning which we have endeavored to keep before the reader in this purely elementary definition.

Another motto: Save the Rent for Society

Save the rent for Society.

That's short and sweet.  I came across it in The Single Tax Year Book for 1917, in a chapter about the Single Tax in Germany.

The Land Questions: #26 -- Revenue Sources for Financing Transportation

26. Fares on inter-city public transportation may not be high enough to finance all the costs of providing the transportation.  What revenue source should be used to pay for the remainder of the costs?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 26 -- Sismondi and Ruskin

In general, as soon as there is no more vacant land, the masters of the soil have a kind of monopoly against the rest of the world.

— SISMONDI, New Principles of Political Economy (1820), Book III., Chap. 5, f. 202. (Second French Edition.)

It begins to be asked on many sides how the possessors of the land became possessed of it, and why they should still possess it, more than you or I.

— RUSKIN, Fors Clavigera, Vol. I., Letter 2.

The Land Questions: #25: Is Transportation a Good Investment?

25.  Fares on inter-city public transportation may not be high enough to finance all the costs of providing the transportation.  Does that mean that it is a poor investment?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 25 -- Isaac Barrow and Jerrard Winstanley

We mistake if we think that natural equality and community are in effect quite taken away; or that all the world is so cantonized among a few that the rest have no share therein.

— ISAAC BARROW, afterward Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Hospital Sermon (1651).

Hear, O thou Righteous Spirit of the whole creation, and judge who is the thief, he who takes away the freedom of  the common earth from me, which is my creation-rights; or I, who take the common earth to plant upon for my free livelihood, endeavoring to live as a free commoner in a free commonwealth, in righteousness and peace.

— JERRARD WINSTANLEY, The Law of Freedom in a Platform, or True Magistracy Restored (1652).

The Land Questions: #24 -- Financing Transportation: What Revenue Sources?

24.  Fares on local public transportation may not be high enough to finance all the costs of providing the transportation.  What revenue source should be used to pay for the remainder of the costs?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 24 -- Cadwalader Golden

Every year the young people go from this province and purchase land in the neighboring colonies, while much better and every way more convenient lands lie useless to the king and country. The reason of this is that the grantees themselves are not, nor never were, in a capacity to improve such large tracts, and other people will not become their vassals or tenants, for one great reason, as people's (the better sort especially) leaving their native country, was to avoid the dependence on landlords.

— Report of Cadwalader Golden, Surveyor-General, and afterward Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of New York (1732), Documentary History of New York, Vol. I., p. 384.

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 23 - Franklin

But notwithstanding this increase (of population), so vast is the territory of North America, that it will require many ages to settle it fully; and, till it is fully settled, labor will never be cheap here, where no man continues long a laborer for others, but gets a plantation of his own; no man continues long a journeyman to a trade, but goes among these new settlers, and sets up for himself.

— BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind (1751), Sec. 8, Works, Vol. II., p. 225.

Mother Earth, Boom-Bust, Free Trade, Dogs-in-the-Manger (landlordism), and widely-spread Prosperity

THE EARTH OUR MOTHER

Man is a land animal as much as a fish is a water animal. Not only does man live on land but all of his wants are supplied by or from land. The earth is, literally, his mother. He will perish quickly if he has not access to the breast of his earth mother and will suffer and squall and become panicky if he has not free access to earth's breast and cannot obtain sufficient nutriment. His relation to land is fundamental and can be broken or disturbed only at great peril and loss to him and to society.

Production and consumption will always be in equilibrium and commerce and exchange will always flow smoothly, if all men at all times have equal and free access to nature's storehouse of wealth and if there are no dams -- tariff, -- etc. to interfere with the exchange of products. Free land and free trade are therefore, essential to economic justice; to give all an equal opportunity to produce goods and to exchange them without paying toll to anyone. When goods are produced and exchanged freely, it is reasonably certain that production and consumption will run so closely together that there can be no serious panics or long periods of depression. Serious maladjustment can and will occur only when production and exchange are interfered with and to the extent that they are interfered with.

The private ownership of land, that is, the taking of economic or land rent by private land owners, or landlords, most seriously interferes with some men's access to mother earth. Landlords are not only dogs in the manger; they are a class and about the only class, except the tariff beneficiaries, that consume without producing; that do not give a quid pro quo for what they get.

The capitalist supplies capital and is entitled to the interest that he gets. The laborer --wage, salary or fee earner -- produces goods or gives services and is entitled to what he gets in exchange. The landlord produces neither the land nor the land rent and is not, therefore, entitled to the rent that he takes. He is the only one who takes out of the economic pot without putting something into it. He is the only one who can and does live off the labor of others. He is the greatest of all economic leeches.

Professor Thorold Rogers said, in 1870:

"Every permanent improvement of the soil, every railroad and road, every bettering of the general condition of society, every facility given for production, every stimulus supplied to consumption, raises rent. The landowner sleeps, but thrives. He alone, among all the recipients in the distribution of products, owes everything to the labor of others, contributes nothing of his own. He inherits part of the fruits of present industry, and has appropriated the lion's share of accumulated intelligence."

If, as in ordinary times, the landlord takes only a moderate rent, that is, charges only the actual rental value of land to the capitalist and laborer who use land, production and consumption proceed normally, for society has fairly well adjusted itself to this unjust system. In times of great prosperity -- so-called -- when there is great speculation in land values and they rise rapidly, the landlords can and do take even more than the normal rental value of land; that is, more rent than is produced by society. Access to land then becomes so difficult and the prices that producers have to charge for food, clothing and shelter become so high that consumers are unable, after paying excessive rent, to purchase all of the goods produced. Hence, the glut in the market; the decline in the prices of commodities; the collapse of the over-extended credits; business failures; closed mills; idle labor and low wages. The business depression does not end until land values have declined to or below normal for the population. Soon thereafter business begins to revive, mills to open, unemployment to decrease, wages to advance and prosperity to return. Industry will continue on the up-grade until rents again become excessive. Most, if not all, periods of prosperity end with real estate booms. Even our present war prosperity will probably continue until there is a boom in city, farm, forest and mine land values.

The Single Tax Year Book (1917)

The Land Questions: #23 -- Financing Operating Costs of Public Transit

23.  Fares on local public transportation may not be high enough to finance all the costs of providing the transportation.  Does that mean that it is a poor investment, or are there other logical and just ways of funding it?

A Tariff for Revenue

No one can defend a protective tariff as a means of raising revenue, since the treasury gets the lamb's share and somebody else the lion's.

--excerpt from The Single Tax YearBook (1917)

The value of land is the day-to-day product of the community

The taxation of all property at a uniform rate is made necessary by the constitutions of about three-fourths of the States of the Union. The taxes on chattels, tools, implements, money, credits, etc., find their condemnation from the Single Taxer's point of view in those ethical considerations which differentiate private from public property. Where there arises a fund known as "land values," growing with the growth of the community and the need of public improvements, it is not only impolitic, it is a violation of the rights of property to tax individual earnings for public expenses.

The value of land is the day-to-day product of the presence and communal activity of the people. It is not a creation of the title-holder and should not be placed in the category of property. If population deserts a town or portions of a town, the value of land will fall; the land may become unsalable. When treated as private property the owner of land receives from day-to-day in ground rent a gift from the community; and justice requires that he should pay taxes to the community proportionate to that gift.

"Land value" or "ground rent" as the older economists termed it, is a tribute which economic law levies upon every occupant of land, however fleeting his stay, as the market price of all the advantages, natural and social, appertaining to that land, including necessarily his just share of the cost of government.

excerpt from The Single Tax Year Book (1917)

The Land Questions: #22 -- Infrastructure and Land Values

22.  The creation of a new subway line raises the land values near each of the stations.  Who should reap the benefit?

A. People who own homes there

B. People who own businesses there

C. People who own land there, whether or not there is a highest-and-best-use building on it

D. Corporations who own land there

E. Universities and other private landholders who own land there

F. Foreign corporations and private equity funds who own land there

G. Pension funds and sovereign wealth funds who own land there

H. The community as a whole, since the community paid for it

 

Download Fred Harrison's book, "Wheels of Fortune"

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 22 -- Grenville Murray

As for the United States, Republicanism has hobbled along hitherto there, because the country, not being half peopled, there is land, like air and water, for all comers.

— E. C. GRENVILLE MURRAY, The Member for Paris, p. 120.

The Land Questions: #21 -- Paying for Transportation Infrastructure

21.  The creation of a new subway line raises the land values near each of the stations.  Who should pay for the building of the subway line?

A. Riders of the new subway line

B. Riders of all subways in the system.

C. Riders of all mass transit in the metro area.

D. Drivers of cars and trucks, all over the metro area, via taxes on their fuel purchases (that is, in proportion to miles driven and the fuel efficiency of their vehicles)

E. Drivers of cars and trucks, all over the metro area, via an annual surcharge on their registration

F. Drivers of cars and trucks, all over the metro area, in proportion to the value of their cars, owned or leased

G. Drivers of cars and trucks, via tolls when they use bridges and tunnels, or HOV lanes, or certain highways

G. The taxpayers, via increased sales taxes on their purchases

H. The tourists and business travelers, via hotel occupancy taxes and taxes on rental cars.

I. Passengers in taxis, via a surcharge on their fares.

J. The homeowners, via taxes on their homes

K. Drivers, commercial and individual, via taxes on fuel purchased within the city

L. Employees all over the metro area, via a payroll tax

M. The tenants of commercial buildings in the heart of the central business district

N. All landholders, paying equally (a parcel tax)

O. All landholders, in proportion to the size of their lots

P.  Landholders, in proportion to the value of the land they hold, without regard to the buildings or their contents.  Those whose land values are raised by their proximity to the new line will see a proportional increase in their share of the tax burden; those far from the new line will not.

Q. Your suggestions?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 21 -- Marx

We have seen that the expropriation of the mass of the people from the soil forms the basis of the capitalist mode of production. The essence of a free policy; on the contrary, consists in this: That the bulk of the soil is still public property, and every settler on it, therefore, can turn part of it into his private property and individual means of production without hindering the later settlers in the same production.

— KARL MARX, Capital, Chap, XXXIII., English Translation, pp. 793-4.

Downton Abbey: The Landed Gentry

I had the pleasure of watching part of a marathon of the second season of Downton Abbey yesterday, knowing that I'd missed a few shows -- and want to watch them all in sequence.

The setting of the show raises some questions one might want to think about.

1. What sort of wages do all the "downstairs" employees receive?

2. What employment alternatives are available to them?

3. How does the owner of Downton Abbey afford to pay for the services of all those workers, in addition to the non-wage costs of maintaining the castle and the surrounding land, which is an overwhelming job -- and passion -- for him?

4. Is there a middle class in that town?  On what are their fortunes dependent?  How are they different from the staff at Downton Abbey?

5. What are the opportunities for the children of the house staff at Downton Abbey to have a different life from their parents?

6. Can others prosper?

7. What sorts of ideas, particularly on public policy, maintain the status quo?

8. Why is having the property pass intact to one person so important?  What would happen if it were divided among several heirs?

9. Do you think there are small holdings in the same area, where individual families can live, work and prosper, or a series of large holdings like DA?

10. Are people unemployed or underemployed? Are their opportunities limited by the system, particularly if they care about staying close to family?

This is off the top of my head.  I'm charmed by the series, and at the same time, am puzzled by how much I enjoy watching it.  (Good writing, of course.)

The Land Questions: #20 Affordable Housing

20. What is the best way to insure that affordable housing -- for people of all ages and stages, all income levels -- is available, both for ownership and for rental, both near the center of activities and, if needed after the desire for housing near the center of activities is satisfied, on the fringes?

A. Lotteries

B. Community Land Trusts

C. Affordable Housing Regulations that require that for every 10 new condos built, 1 must be affordable to people earning less than the local median household income

D. Rent control

E. Shame

F. Fundraisers

G. Habitat for Humanity

H. Relaxed mortgage lending rules and more private mortgage insurance

I. Land value taxation, to encourage the redevelopment of underused sites near the center of things

J. Your suggestions?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 20 - Herbert Spencer

Supposing the entire habitable globe to be so enclosed, it follows that if the landowners have a valid right to its surface, all who are not land owners have no right at all to its surface.  Hence such can exist on the earth by sufferance only. They are all trespassers. Save by the permission of the lords of the soil, they can have no room for the soles of their feet. Nay, should the others think fit to deny them a resting place, these landless men might equitably be expelled from the earth altogether

—HERBERT SPENCER, Social Statics (1850), Chap. IX.

[Note. — It should be remarked that after circulating this chapter for forty years, the author withdrew it. The truth however, cannot be withdrawn, and we quote this chapter on its own merits here and elsewhere. Its logic is unanswerable.]

Ipswich residents appeal to preserve land trust - Metro - The Boston Globe

Ipswich residents appeal to preserve land trust - Metro - The Boston Globe.

“If the property stays in trust, it will be worth a lot more money,’’ said Clark Ziegler, a resident who is also a housing expert. “This is a very bad deal for the Ipswich schools . . . and it’s completely inconsistent with William Paine’s will.’’

So ends an article in the Boston Globe about the attempt of 167 tenants to be come the new beneficiaries of a trust that has been in existence for 350 years, in return for about $26 million.

The intended beneficiaries were the children of the town of Ipswich, and I simply can't see any logic by which they should be replaced by these private self-selected individuals.

The article begins:

A legal battle over a wind-swept summer colony rising over Crane Beach is reaching a conclusion, as Ipswich residents mount a last-ditch fight to stop the $32.5 million sale of the property and prevent the breakup of a Colonial-era land trust that was set up to benefit the Ipswich public schools.

The residents contend that the sale of property on what is known as Little Neck violates the terms of a will written in 1660 by William Paine, a wealthy English settler and merchant, who stated the land should never be sold, and that rents collected benefit Ipswich schoolchildren.

One hundred and sixty-seven cottages dot the rocky peninsula. A group of Ipswich residents argue that the 352-year-old land trust should not be broken, and that the sale price is too low for prime waterfront land.

“We feel that the court hasn’t actually made any findings on whether it’s OK to break this will,’’ said Douglas DeAngelis, an Ipswich parent, and one of 14 residents who filed the appeal.

To sell it off at all is a crime against the children of Ipswich in 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400 and beyond, but especially so in a down market, at a bargain price.

What sort of people would agree to this?

They're "solving" a half-vast problem -- failure to collect market-level land rents on this fabulous permanent asset in recent decades -- with a vast and permanent "solution" which permanently disadvantages the intended beneficiaries, and benefits the 167 tenants hugely!

Unconscionable.

Tell the current tenants to pay their back rents, and bring the current rents up to market levels within the next, say, 3 years.  If they don't like it, they're welcome to leave,   This was never intended to be subsidized vacation housing for a lucky few; it was designed to benefit the local public schools, and permitting it to be twisted into something else is just plain wrong.

This blog has more observations and history on this story.  See them collected at  http://lvtfan.typepad.com/lvtfans_blog/feoffees-land/.

The Land Questions #19 -- Beaches

19. Storms continue to erode the resort beaches up and down our coasts.  Who should pay for beach restoration every few years?

A. The federal government, from income tax revenues.  (why?)

B. Taxes on pollution should be used to pay for this, on the basis that pollution produces the climatic conditions that make storms slower moving and more destructive.

C. State governments along the coasts.

D. Local governments, town by town, paid for by sales taxes.

E. County governments along the coasts.

F. Local governments, town by town, paid for by taxing wages.

G. Local governments, town by town, paid for by summer parking revenue, hotel bill taxes and taxes on rental properties' revenue;

H. Local governments, town by town, paid for by property taxes, taxing both buildings and land, in proportion to current market value

I. Local governments, town by town, paid for by land value taxation.  Land values close to the beaches rise and fall with the sand, and properties further from the beaches are far less effected by the presence/absence of beach sand than those near the beaches. 

J. Local governments, town by town, paid for by transfer taxes on sold properties, so as not to burden long-time owners who aren't selling.

K. Estate taxes

L. Your suggestions?

 

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 19: Goldsmith

Sweet, smiling village, loveliest of the lawn,
Thy sports are fled, and all thy charms withdrawn;
Amidst thy bowers the tyrant's hand is seen,
And desolation saddens all the green.
One only master grasps the whole domain,
And half a tillage stints the smiling plain. .  .  .
And trembling, shrinking from the spoiler's hand,
Far, far away thy children leave the land.

— OLIVER GOLDSMITH, The Deserted Village.

A 'settler' in England

Short stories. A 'settler' in England.

Paying twice?

A story is told of an Australian, who returned to England from the backwoods to set up his home in the old country.

He selected a suitable site and approached the owner for information about the purchase price. The owner demanded £ 1.000, which amazed the newcomer and caused him to ask, "Why so much?"

"Well," said the agent, "the site is bounded by two main roads, has main drainage, water, gas and electricity laid on, is near to the public park and is close to the railway. These are great benefits and I could easily get £ 1.000 for this half acre."

The Australian agreed and work began on his house. When it was nearing completion he found a stranger measuring it up and asked him what he was about.

The stranger replied that he was from the Valuation Department of the Borough Council.

The Australian said, "You may be, but that is my house. What are you doing here?"

The surveyor, a little surprised, explained that he was valuing the house for rates and explained what the rates were.

The Australian demanded to know what he had to pay the rates for.

"Why," said the surveyor, "for the main roads, the public park and the other amenities of the district.

***

Anyone who uses his eyes will observe how the expenditure of the authorities in making improvements is capitalized by the landowner who advertise these very improvements as reasons why they should be paid higher prizes for their land.

If this rent were taken by the public authority it would clearly pay for the public services.

Taxes on income, consumption etc. could then be abolished.

*

From Maclaren: Nature of Society


You might check out some additional versions of this story, told over about 120 years.   Make it your own!

The Land Questions #18 -- Gambling

18.  Why do we give special privileges to certified Native American tribes: e.g., the right to run casinos, sell cigarettes without collecting taxes, etc.

A. Because some Native American communities are poor, or have good lobbyists.  Gambling creates jobs for some and great riches for some, while preying on others.

B. Because "our" ancestors took away something absolutely vital from their ancestors (even if many of our ancestors arrived well after the event): land.

C. Because a significant minority of Americans realize they can't get rich through honest labor and think they have better chances at the gambling table.

D. Because states collect some portion of the casino revenue (in Connecticut, 25%).

D. Your suggestions

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 18 -- Isaiah

Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!

— ISAIAH, V. 8.

The Land Questions: #17 -- Middle East

17. There's a conflict in Israel.  What's the real issue?

A. Respect

B. Armageddon / Apocalype

C. Land -- everyone needs secure access to some if they are not to be subject to others

D. Differences in religious tradition.

E. Water

F. Your suggestions?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 17 -- William Godwin

Humanity weeps over the distresses of the peasantry of all civilized nations; and when she turns from the spectacle to behold the luxury of their lords, gross, imperial and prodigal, her sensations are certainly not less acute. This spectacle is the school in which mankind have been educated. They have been accustomed to the sight of injustice, oppression and iniquity, till their feelings have been made callous, and their understanding incapable of apprehending the nature of true virtue.

— WILLIAM GODWIN, Political Justice (1793), Book VIII., Chap. 2.

A 1938 NYT Letter to the Editor: Collecting Ground Rent

I came across this rather good letter to the editor, from 1938.  (Trinity Church Corporation, a major landlord in downtown Manhattan, was the subject of a NYT article this past week, as well as the subject of a major series in the NYT in December, 1894):

1938-09-03 Letters to The Times

Collecting Ground Rent
Single-Tax System Regarded as No Detriment to Building

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Fabian Franklin, in his letter to THE TIMES discussing the demolition of John D. Rockefeller's Harlem tenements in order to save taxes, writes:

"That objection is simply that virtual abolition of land ownership, which the single-tax plan is designed to effect, would make the building of houses in a city an extra-hazardous business, because, under the single-tax regime, in the great majority of cases the investment would result in a disastrous loss to the owner of the building.  I was neither blaming nor praising Mr. Rockefeller for the demolition of Harlem tenements."

What is the so-called single-tax system?  It is the collection by the government, through the taxing officials, of the entire economic or ground rent of land and the repeal of all taxes on buildings and other products of labor and capital.  That ground rent is estimated to be 9% of the capital value of the land.  New York City is now collecting one-third of this ground rent.  The market value of the lots is the remaining two-thirds, capitalized.  Dr. Franklin's thesis is that if the entire ground rent is collected no one would erect buildings, because "in the great majority of cases the investment would result in a disastrous loss to the owner of the building."

Some of the finest buildings in New York City are erected on leased land and the lessee pays the ground rent 100% besides a tax on the building.  There are hundreds of buildings erected by lessees of lots owned by Trinity Church, Astor estate, Rhinelander estate, Sailors Snug Harbor and others.  The lessees must pay all the taxes, both on land and building, amounting to 3% of the assessed value of both, and to the landlord 6% of the market value of the land.

Thus the entire ground rent is paid by the lessee, but only one-third to the government representing the people who made that value by their presence and activities, the remaining two-thirds to the landlord.  Notwithstanding that they are thus obliged to pay 100% of the economic rent, bankers and business men erect buildings costing millions.  Under the Henry George plan they would have to pay less, for the taxes on these costly structures will have been repealed.

Perhaps if Mr. Rockefeller had not been obliged to pay taxes on the buildings he might not have pulled them down; or, if he had, would have erected better buildings in their place in order to get a return on his investment in buildings.  The ones who will benefit most from the adoption of the Georgian philosophy are the owners of humble homes.  The average small homeowner's house is assessed for at least twice the assessed value of the lot.  If the house is relieved from taxation and the lot taxed the entire ground rent, his tax will be less than it is now.  The difference will be made up from vacant lots and lots that are worth more than the improvements.

After all, the building of houses is like any other business.  The builder takes the risk of lessened demand because of changes in fashion, obsolescence, competition.  It is estimated that 95% of new businesses ultimately fail. With the adoption, however, of the philosophy of Henry George, commonly called the single tax, failures in the housing and other businesses will be much fewer.  This is because neither houses nor goods nor anything else will be taxed.  The collection of the entire ground rent will not lessen the area of the surface of the earth one inch.  On the contrary, it will open to occupation and use land that is now held for speculation purposes. 

The taxation of any product of labor and capital will add the amount of the tax to the price, lessen demand and thus curtail production.  The result is unemployment and misery.

Frederic Cyrus Leubuscher
Essex Fells, N. J., Aug. 31, 1938

The Land Questions: #16 -- Paying for War

16. How should we pay for the war in Afghanistan?

A. Don't worry about that.  Our children should pay for it, and their children if necessary, with interest accumulating.  The economy will grow sufficiently that it will not unduly burden them.

B. We should pay for it via federal taxes on wages.

C. We should pay for it via a federal tax on sales (or consumption).

D. We should pay for it via a federal tax on land value; people and corporations (domestic or foreign) who own land in midtown Manhattan or downtown Los Angeles would pay a lot; those who own rural property would pay little or nothing.  Tenants' rents -- residential,  commercial, agricultural -- would cover their share, and be collected from landlords.

E. We should pay for it via royalties on non-renewable natural resources. (Whose natural resources?  from U.S. soil? from Afghanistan soil? other?)

F. Your suggestions?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 16 -- Necker

Nearly all civil institutions were made for the benefit of the rich. If we peruse our books of law, we are startled at finding everywhere the confirmation of the fact. It could almost be said that a few people, after dividing the earth among themselves, ordained laws to fortify themselves against the multitude.

— NECKER (afterwards Minister of Finance under Louis XVI.),
Essay on the Corn-Laws, (1775),
Part III., Chap. 12, Oeuvres, Vol. I., p. 333.

 

As time permits, I sometimes do some additional research on the quotes and authors Crosby included in The Earth-for-All Calendar.  This one took me into new territory: I couldn't find an English translation of this book online, but did find a French edition, which I put through Google's Translation function.  If you've worked with Google Books, you know that the "plain text" version often has a lot of "scannos," which are relatively easy to straighten out if one knows the language.  My grade-school French was of little help, so Google Translate worked with the as-is text. (If anyone who knows French wants to clean up that French text and put it through Google Translate again, I'm happy to share the file.)

Crosby included several other quotes in his book; they'll appear on their appointed dates.  But here are some tantalizing bits and pieces -- with the untranslatable scannos left in place:

 

NYT Invitation to a Dialogue - A National Service Program

Invitation to a Dialogue - A National Service Program - NYTimes.com Published: February 14, 2012

To the Editor:

David Brooks suggested in a recent column that the country needs a national service program to unite the diverging classes in society. He’s right.

Not long ago, we had one that did so very well. It was the draft. Every young man — regrettably, only men — shared a potential obligation to his country.

Any serious discussion of comprehensive national service means talking about a draft. It’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court upholding nondefense conscription, but if civilian service were an alternative to military duty, the prospects would improve.

The all-volunteer military is exemplary for its professionalism, sacrifice, meritocracy and diversity. (I have a son with two college degrees who enlisted.) But the benefits and burdens need to be shared more widely. There have been too many multiple deployments of regulars and reserves, and if draftees were in the mix once again, perhaps there would be no more wars of choice.

Many domestic needs could be served by a comprehensive national service program. Like the Depression’s best idea, the Civilian Conservation Corps, it could involve people from all classes in repairing our parks, roads, bridges and other infrastructure. It could also bring fresh ideas and talent to teaching, law enforcement, social work and other underpaid public services. The benefits to our national character, as Mr. Brooks suggests, would be immense.

There are past and present models of a national service program in more than a dozen other nations. It is time we gave it a try.

MARTIN A. DYCKMAN
Waynesville, N.C., Feb. 14, 2012
The writer is a retired associate editor and columnist for The St. Petersburg Times.

Editors’ Note: We invite readers to respond to this letter for our Sunday Dialogue. We plan to publish responses and Mr. Dyckman’s rejoinder in the Sunday Review. E-mail: [email protected]

LVTfan's observation: Every investment in improved infrastructure creates land value.   Most projects that have value -- education, law enforcement, social work, improved public health -- will also increase land value.

A project is, by definition, worthwhile if it creates more in land value than it costs to do,* and, it could be argued that, when comparing two infrastructure projects that cost the same amount, say, $100 million, if one creates $200 million in land value and the other creates merely $150 million in incremental land value, the $200 million project should probably take priority, all other things being equal.

*which isn't to say that many public spending projects which don't create increased land value aren't worthwhile, too, for other reasons.

These projects, some will say, fall into the category of "pork" spending.

Pork barrel is the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district. The usage originated in American English.^[1] In election campaigns, the term is used in derogatory fashion to attack opponents. Scholars, however, use it as a technical term regarding legislative control of local appropriations.^[2]

History

The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. In the popular 1863 story "The Children of the Public", Edward Everett Hale used the term pork barrel as a homely metaphor for any form of public spending to the citizenry.^[3] After the American Civil War, however, the term came to be used in a derogatory sense. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the modern sense of the term from 1873.^[4] By the 1870s, references to "pork" were common in Congress, and the term was further popularized by a 1919 article by Chester Collins Maxey in the National Municipal Review, which reported on certain legislative acts known to members of Congress as "pork barrel bills". He claimed that the phrase originated in a pre-Civil War practice of giving slaves a barrel of salt pork as a reward and requiring them to compete among themselves to get their share of the handout.^[5] More generally, a barrel of salt pork was a common larder item in 19th century households, and could be used as a measure of the family's financial well-being. For example, in his 1845 novel The Chainbearer, James Fenimore Cooper wrote, "I hold a family to be in a desperate way, when the mother can see the bottom of the pork barrel."^[6]

Definition

Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples.

Citizens Against Government Waste^[7] outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork":

1.  
   1. Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
   2. Not specifically authorized;
   3. Not competitively awarded;
   4. Not requested by the President;
   5. Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
   6. Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
   7. Serves only a local or special interest.

The last of these seems as if it might be the most important one.

So here's the question: How should we finance these projects, if they are to be done?  How would we pay for a modern CCC? (Ah -- this sounds like The Land Questions ...)

A.  By a local tax on land value.  This would necessitate regular reassessment of the land value in every community in America, say, every 3 years, which could be done for well under $40 per parcel.  It would probably also require some state and/or federal oversight, checking values against transactions to verify that all municipalities or assessing units are doing high-quality market-based assessments. [In Maryland, they're already doing assessments every 3 years.  In Connecticut, assessments every 4 years are required.  In southern Delaware, the assessments are 30+ years old.  In California, the assessments are meaningless, due to Proposition 13.  It would take a few years for some of these entities to update their assessments.]

B. By a state tax on land value. [same issues apply]

C. By a national tax on land value.

D. Let's just use the federal income tax.  It's there.  It's easy.

E. Let's use a national sales tax.

F. Let's use a tax on imports.

G. Let's tax buildings.

H. Let's tax services.

It seems to me that a national service corps of some sort has a lot of merit.  It could promote a lot of highly desirable goals.  It could provide a lot of home-front protection in the event of natural disasters.  It could get some important projects done, including the maintenance of existing infrastructure currently under-maintained,and the provision of services we believe are important (particularly when we are the beneficiaries).

But the financial benefits ought not to fall into private or corporate pockets; they ought to accrue to all of us, and ease the burdens of financing other kinds of federal spending.  Land value taxation strikes me as the answer to so many of our supposedly intractible problems.

 

 

The Land Questions: #15 and 15a -- War, Natural Resources

15. We were at war in Iraq.  What was the real issue?

A. Oil revenues: who gets them?

B. A stable supply of oil -- don't worry about who gets the revenues

C. Providing water systems, electricity, schools for the people of Iraq

D. Providing a safe period in which they can replicate 250 years of American experience and develop government structure to provide security, infrastructure, etc.

E. your suggestions?

 

15a.  We're in Afghanistan.  Is it about that country's natural resources?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 15 -- Plutarch

But when the rich began to carry it with a high hand over the poor, and to exclude them entirely if they did not pay exorbitant rents, a law was made that no man should be possessed of more than five hundred acres of land. This statute for a while restrained the avarice of the rich, and helped the poor, who by virtue of it remained on their lands at the old rents.

— PLUTARCH, Life of Tiberius Gracchus.

The Land Questions: #14 -- Personal Economic Security

14. A man wants to provide for his family in case something happens to him.  What should he do?

A. Buy them some slaves

B. Buy them some real estate

C. Buy them some land, particularly where taxpayer-financed infrastructure is about to be added

D. Buy them stocks

E. Buy life insurance

F. Buy them slaves and land

G. Your suggestions?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 14 -- W. D. Howells

Within a poor man's squalid home I stood;
    The one bare chamber, where his work-worn wife
    Above the stove and wash-tub passed her life,
Next the sty where they slept with all their brood.
    . . . . . . . . . . 
I saw a great house with the portals wide
    Upon a banquet room, and from without
          The guests descending in a brilliant line
By the stairs' statued niches, and beside
     The loveliest of the gemmed and silken rout,
          The poor man's landlord leading down to dine.

— W. D. HOWELLS, Vision, in Stops of Various Quills.

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 23 -- Franklin

But notwithstanding this increase (of population), so vast is the territory of North America, that it will require many ages to settle it fully; and, till it is fully settled, labor will never be cheap here, where no man continues long a laborer for others, but gets a plantation of his own; no man continues long a journeyman to a trade, but goes among these new settlers, and sets up for himself.

— BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind (1751),

Sec. 8, Works, Vol. II., p. 225.

Design a Fix for the Housing Market - NYTimes.com

Design a Fix for the Housing Market - NYTimes.com.

One long-term solution would be a type of co-op in which residents buy and sell shares according to their changing needs and circumstances. Unlike traditional co-ops, residents could purchase shares corresponding only to the units they occupy, not the land beneath, which remains in the hands of a “community land trust.” Such a structure would keep housing costs down while limiting residents’ exposure to the market. It would also provide a backstop for struggling homeowners, since the trust would have the legal right to step in and assist residents in the event of foreclosure.

Land trusts have thrived on a small scale in New York City and Chicago, among other places. The federal government should now scale up the efforts by transferring some of the nearly 250,000 foreclosed homes acquired by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration into a national trust or a series of local trusts.

The Land Questions: #13 -- Electric Utilities

13. Electric utilities have long been regarded as "widows' and orphans'" stocks.  Safe, if not high income.  A few years ago, they were deregulated.  A recent study has shown that retail electricity prices have increased faster in states that adopted competitive pricing than in those where rates continue to be set by government agencies.  We all need reliable electricity.  Should we permit the licenses to generate and distribute electricity to be an opportunity to make a windfall profit?  (Or should we encourage municipal ownership of vital utilities?)

A.  Sure!  People and businesses are quite free to move from states without regulation to states with regulation if they choose.  They may not mind paying 20% more for their electricity, if other conditions are good. And didn't the utilities earn it?

B. Sure.  If local regulatory agencies decide that local best interests conflict with the interests of the corporate shareholders, they can re-regulate.  After all, the corporations don't vote.

C. No. Electricity is important and we ought to do what we can to keep the price down so that poor people can afford electricity and still have funds for other costs of living.

D. No.  Electricity is vital to the economy, and we ought to do what we can to keep it affordable to ordinary people, and not a source of corporate windfalls.

E. No.  Natural monopolies ought to be publicly owned, the prices kept low, and any excess revenue accrue to the public treasury, not to the benefit of private investors.

F. your suggestions?

 

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 13 -- Edward Carpenter

As far as the palaces of the rich stretch through Mayfair and Belgravia and South Kensington, so far (and farther) must the hovels of the poor inevitably stretch in the opposite direction. There is no escape. It is useless to talk about better housing of these unfortunates unless you strike at the root of their poverty, and if you want to see the origin and explanation of an East London rookery, you must open the door and walk in upon some fashionable dinner-party at the West End, where elegance, wealth, ease, good grammar, politeness and literary and sentimental conversation only serve to cover up and conceal a heartless mockery — the lie that it is a fine thing to live upon the labor of others.

— EDWARD CARPENTER, England's Ideal, pp. 7-8.

The Land Questions: #12 -- Water Utilities

12.   Foreign corporations own the water utilities in parts of New England.  Often these companies came with significant acreage on picturesque reservoirs, some within easy commuting distance of New York City.  Water is a vital resource, and the infrastructure which supplies it and cleans it is vital to everyone.   In other places, including NYC, municipal utilities supply the water.   Is private ownership of the water supply acceptable?

A. Sure!  Why not?

B. As long as it is regulated by stong public utility commissions

C. No, this should be a public function.

D. Private ownership is fine, as long as it is American corporations.  They'll take care of us, and not overcharge us.

E. This is a natural monopoly situation, and rightly should be owned by the local, county or state government, or some local public entity.  Clean water is too important to leave to the private sector, even where the supply is abundant.

F.  Your suggestions?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 12 -- Froude

"I suppose at the smallest average for the making of a single rich man, we make a thousand whose lifelong is one floodtide of misery. The charnel houses of poverty are in the, shadow of the palace, and, as one is splendid, so is the other dark, poisonous, degraded. How can a man grow rich except on the spoils of others' labor? His boasted prudence and economy, what is it but the most skilfully availing himself of their necessities, most resolutely closing  up his heart against their cries to him for help?"

— J. A. FROUDE, Nemesis of Faith (1848), Letter VII. (Words spoken by one of the characters).

The Land Questions: #11 -- Ports

11. Foreign corporations and governments are seeking to buy some of our ports from the American corporations that own them.  Large shares of the goods we consume come through these ports, and the ports set the price that the shippers pay for access to the ports.  The possibility of weapons, invasive species, etc., entering the US through these ports is frightening.  Ports are unique locations, on sheltered waterfronts, served by elaborate rail and highway systems.  Is foreign ownership acceptable?

A. Sure!  No problem!  The costs to shippers are the same whether the owners are American or foreign!

B. Sure!  No problem!  These corporations have long term contracts with the local Port Authorities, and the PAs are smart bargainers who make sure that they collect the economic value of these unique sites from whoever has the contracts or owns the ports, for the entire term of the contract.

C. It is acceptable for foreign corporations to "own" the ports, but they must pay into the US treasury the economic value of the site.  They must not be permitted to privatize what is rightly common property.

D. It is not acceptable for foreign corporations to own the ports, but okay for US companies to privatize that value.

E. We ought to be collecting the annual rental value of the site itself, month in and month out, as our common treasure.  It shouldn't be privatized by anyone.

F. your suggestions?

The Earth-for-All Calendar: February 11 -- Cardinal Manning

The state of the houses — families living in single rooms, sometimes many families in one room — a corner apiece. These things cannot go on. The accumulation of wealth in the land, the piling up of wealth like mountains, in the possession of classes or of individuals, cannot go on, if these moral conditions of the people are not healed. No commonwealth can rest on such foundations.

— CARDINAL MANNING, Dignity and Rights of Labor, Miscellanies, Vol. I., pp. 96-97.