The Scandal of Wealth alongside Gigantic Misery did not Disappear

   'The Scandal of Wealth alongside Gigantic Misery did not Disappear.'  Those were the words of Mr Yves Peuraut, president of the executive committee of the Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda (World Non-nationalist Association), during the formal opening of the 69th Congress of S.A.T. in St Petersburg [Russia] in 1996.
   I have just re-read a biography of Tom Paine.  Late in the 18th century he wrote similar words:  'The contrast of abundance and poverty is similar to dead and living bodies being chained together.'
   Also, late in the 19th century, the major book of Henry George has the same theme:  'the persistence of poverty amidst advancing wealth.'
   Professor John Dewey, Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at Columbia University wrote:    When in France they wrote the 'Declaration of Rights' and in the United States the 'Declaration of Independence' they only emphasized civil rights.  Philosophers also during the 19th century discussed natural rights a lot.
   But Henry George extended the concept to economic affairs, accenting the right of all people to the use of the earth and the right of all to the fruit of their labour.
   About the problem of progress and poverty he proposed a simple solution:  allow everyone to have land which they desire, on condition that they pay in to the public money-chest its total rental value in the form of a tax.
   Let us think about the nature of land.  George distinguished between land-ownership and the ownership of man-made things.  One supposes that he was the first who wrote about that distinction.  [Editor's Note: No, others had; for example, the French Physiocrats.]  But of course the indigenous peoples of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, etc., knew the distinction – and by that they surprised the early colonists from Britain, Spain, and the rest.  Even in Britain until the 18th century land was not private property. [Editor's Note: Well, it was as good as private, even though most officially belonged to the Crown in theory.]  As Proudhoun said: 'La propriété c'est la vol'  and he chose to say that possession of the land was theft.
   All that we have in life – nutriment, clothes, houses, furniture, and the rest, come from the land.  Humanity's dependence on the land is absolute.
   But land is treated similarly to a commodity.  But it is totally different to a commodity:  Land is a fixed stock; land is not a product of humans; humanity cannot live without land. It did not disappear, the scandal of wealth alongside gigantic poverty..By Will Simcock    The equal right of all human beings to the use of the earth is similar to the equal right to breathe the air.  Furthermore, no right to own the earth exists.  The justification of private possession from anyone else is, that wealth production belongs to those who produce it.  But who can produce even a little bit of mud?  The origin of the enormous landholdings of the Dukes is thievery.
   As Paine wrote: 'It is incorrect to say "and God made the rich and poor;" He only made men and women; and He gives to everyone the earth as their heritage.'
   The billionaire Duke of Westminster owns many thousands of hectares of our country [Britain], including the most valuable land in London, for which he receives rent of millions of pounds a week.  It is the ownership of land that gives to a few people the power to become rich.  With every economic advance rent becomes greater, but wages remain more or less constant.  [Editor's Note: Not so.  Real wages in developed countries rose from the 1940s to the late 1960s.]  Those who own land become rich without exertion.  Generation after generation grants the 'right' of that Duke, but the poorest London child has as much right as the son of the Duke.  Paine calculated two centuries ago that the Duke of Richmond received income that equalled that of 2000 ordinary people added together.
   Why has the land of Mayfair and Knightsbridge, which enriches the Duke of Westminster, become so valuable? – the high value of land comes about by the continued presence and increase of the community.  And in many parts of our country the value is exceedingly great also, the location or situation is more valuable than the buildings on it.  For example, one of my sons bought a cottage in a nice part of Didsbury, Manchester; you enter the sitting-room from the footpath.  If you were to move the cottage to another part of Manchester – among hovels – you would pay a quarter of the price.
   The solution is to tax the rent or value of land. This would enable private occupation of land to continue, but on condition that the occupant of each location pays the community for the privilege of its exclusive use.  So, the tax on land value ensures equal rights to the use of land.
   So, what ought a progressive government do? Here's the plan: Collect public income and simultaneously cut taxation!

Henry George
   After a valuation of all land in the country, they will be able to calculate the total annual rental.  That is the public income available for the first year, and experts calculate that it equals 20% of the Gross National Product.
   Then we will be able to cut taxation, particularly taxes which discourage employment – V.A.T. [Value-Added Tax] and taxes on wages.
   Poor, homeless and unemployed people will gain greatly after the changes.  In fact they do not own land.  Anyone who profits solely from ownership of land will lose.
   There would be a big quantity shift in the economy, and the land would undoubtedly gain value again.  There would be a new fund out of which we would be able to cut taxes again.  And at long last we could get rid of traditional taxes.  We could call this plan: 'Land Tax for Public Revenue.' (Translated from the 1997 Esperanto language original.)