It is sometimes possible to get useful ideas about how to handle familiar things by observing how people have dealt with novelties. From the early twentieth century onwards, increasing attention has been given to aspects of nature which cannot be measured as easily as we can measure - say - the distance between two towns, or the area of a field.
Radio and television
Radio waves were the first big example of that sort of thing. As radio became increasingly popular, people were forced to realise that sending messages by radio could not continue as it had been in the very earliest days, a simple matter of "everyone for himself'. Different radio stations on similar frequencies interfered with each other's transmissions, to the annoyance of broadcasters and public alike. It became necessary to allocate particular frequencies to particular stations on both a national and an international scale. When television arrived on the scene, similar problems arose. Soon most people came to accept that what had once been a great "common" must be divided between different claimants. When these claimants were privately-owned companies, they were required to pay the rest of the community for their franchises.
Air travel.
Radio and television wave frequencies are only one example of places where what had once been a great unexploited "common" had to be divided between claimants who were expected to pay in some way for their share of what had originally been the "common". Air space is another. When air travel began, it was largely a matter of everyone for himself, and the only serious problem was whether a person flying over somebody else's land was committing a legal trespass: a matter which, so far as Britain was concerned, was resolved by an Act of Parliament in 1920.
But as time went on and air travel became increasingly frequent, problems multiplied. Aeroplanes had to be kept to certain flight-paths, and kept at a distance from each other, to minimise the risks of collision and of annoyance to the public. Flights in and out of airports became numerous, and it was soon accepted that the allocation of space and time to particular individuals or corporations was a matter of public policy, for which beneficiaries could reasonably be expected to pay. However airlines are allocated these "slots" and no payment is made.
Fisheries
On an international scale, fisheries have presented a comparable problem, particularly since 1945. Once the open seas, beyond the three-mile national limits, were open to all who cared to fish in them. Now increasingly powerful ways of catching fish have been developed, and increasing numbers of people wish to eat fish, with the result that popular kinds of fish are becoming scarce. It has been necessary to make both national and international arrangements to regulate use of the ocean, once the biggest "common" of all, and again it has not been considered wrong to ask for beneficiaries to pay for the privilege.
Other cases.
One can think of various other examples where what had once been a "common", available for all to use, has been restricted by government or inter-government action. Once, people were largely free to eject effluent - solid, liquid or gaseous- from their homes or factories, and the main legal constraint was that somebody who suffered as a result could seek damages or an injunction. Now there are a great many legal restrictions on that sort of thing. Many new problems are arising through the widespread use of computers and the internet. It is not difficult to foresee that soon people who use wind power as a source of energy, or who project satellites into orbit, will be required to pay for the privilege.
The principle
All these examples from the last hundred years, and perhaps others which are in the pipeline, bring out the same point. When some natural resource is available in more or less limitless quantity, and there are few people who wish to exploit it, there is no need to restrict access to that resource. But when claimants to the resource become numerous, allocation is necessary, and the principle is generally accepted that the beneficiaries should compensate the community for the benefit they desire.
Land
This ties up with a much older "common", where today different principles seem to apply: "land", in the everyday use, (rather than the scientific use), of that word. When human beings were in the hunter-gatherer stage, they could collect food and other resources wherever these were available. But as agriculture developed, and human populations increased, it became necessary to parcel out particular bits of land to particular individuals, on either a temporary or a permanent basis. That parcelling was often done very crudely indeed. Strong and powerful individuals soon began to acquire more land, or better land, than others. Here is the root of the enormous gap between rich and poor which has been observed in a great many agricultural societies. In ancient Egypt, for example, there is little evidence of great disparities of wealth and poverty in the very earliest agricultural times; but by the time of the earliest pharaohs the gap was huge. Pharaoh could require other people to build pyramids for him; while innumerable other people, whose title to a scrap of land turned on pharaoh's permission, had to do as he ordered.
Drawing the lessons.
But is all this just history? No; for it provides an immensely important lesson for today. The word "land", to the economist, means more or less the same as "natural resources". Air or water or cyberspace are all "land"; but what people have put on the "land" -like buildings or crops - are distinguished from "land", and are called "improvements". "Land" is necessary for all our activities - from producing food and shelter, to watching television, or travelling, or using water for drinking or washing or generating power. If some particular individual or corporation wants special rights over parts of these things, to the exclusion of the rest of us, then surely it is reasonable to ask him to pay for the privilege? In modern cases where new kinds of "land" have had to be apportioned, this principle has been accepted.
So why not apply the principle to all "land" , and notably "land" in the everyday meaning of the word - minus the "improvements"? As it is obviously not practical to carve up "land" so that everybody gets a fair share, the best way of doing this is by what is called Land Value Taxation, or LVT. All land in the country would first be valued - excluding, of course, the "improvements". Then a tax would be levied, related to that valuation. As everybody knows, land in some places is enormously more valuable than land in others. In some places there are legal restrictions on the use of land - Green Belt land, for example - and that is also relevant to the valuation. Land values change with time, and so periodic revaluations would be necessary.
Another tax? No, LVT is not an additional burden on the taxpayer but a replacement. As the revenue from LVT increased, other taxes like income tax or VAT
would be reduced.
There is a big difference betwen LVT and other taxes. LVT collects revenue by requiring payment for the exclusive use of a natural resource of the planet earth - something that all humans have an equal right to. Other taxes collect revenue by fining the taxpayer for creating goods or offering services; they charge individuals and companies for their own work. Which, on may ask, is the better kind of tax?
|
|
