# Taxing Land Ownership and Universal Basic Income

## Too Much Money Around

Money is not the problem of this world, only its distribution:
there is too much money in possession of a too small amount of
mankind. So we need to better distribute it.
The distribution should be in the hands of all the people, and
the best approximation of an organisation of all people (at least
in democracies) is the state, therefore the state must take money
from the rich and use it for all (possibly passing it on the poor
people, but that's only one potential use).
The state gets money from people through taxes, therefore we must
find ways of increasing taxes for wealthy people.

## Tax the Rich

There are several potential sources of taxes which affect mostly
the wealthy people, with different advantages and problems:

- Taxing wealth directly, by property taxes: this can be
  difficult because it's not always clear who owns what, and the
  more money you have, the more ways there are to hide what you own.
- Taxing financial gains: this would probably be the fairest way,
  because financial gains are almost never required for being able
  to live (that's what income is for). However, financial gains are
  also very easy to hide if one has a lot of money.
- Tax the use of natural resources: this is a somewhat indirect
  tax on the wealthy, because they tend to consume more natural
  resources than poor people, but it is very difficult to reliably
  track consumption along production chains.
- Tax land ownership: this is a very good combination of taxing
  use of natural resources, financial gains, and wealth; we will
  focus on this for now.

## Land Property

Owning land is probably the most important form of possession,
although also the most illogical and detrimental to the world and
society in general.

You cannot produce land, nor take it with you, nor are its
boundaries (unless natural) well defined.
You cannot earn it, except if we believe that land is just for
grabs of the first one to do it -- which of course was and is
often ignored by those coming later and being stronger (or better
armed).
You cannot take it with you or put it in a box for saving or
hiding it. It's just where it always was and will be.
If you claim it, where does this end? Does it extend to the core
of the planet, vertically downwards along its boundary? And what
about diffusion of soil and water, animals moving across the
border? Do you have to put impermeable walls around it to really
own it?

Does the *space* occupied by the land you claim your own actually
represent the claim? If you pay somebody for excavating the soil
from your land to a depth of hundred yards, does that other
person then own your land, because they transported it away? Most
people might say no, so it indeed seems to be the *space* which
"is" the property.
But how can you own space if you cannot even hold it nor
manipulate it? It's just there!

Owning land is bad for society because it allows the owners to
control the life of others, or to cite
[The Devil's Dictionary]( https://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/l.html#LAND_ )
from Ambrose Bierce:

> LAND, n. A part of the earth's surface, considered as property.
> The theory that land is property subject to private ownership
> and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently
> worthy of the superstructure.
> Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the
> right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies
> the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are
> enacted wherever property in land is recognized.
> It follows that if the whole area of *terra firma* is owned by
> A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born,
> or, born as trespassers, to exist.

All in all, the idea of owning land is rather weird, and in
principle it might be best to abandon it completely, but this
would also upend a large part of our societal construct.
On the other hand, the idea of severly taxing land ownership is
quite appealing, as it can be used well to specifically "tax the
rich". In parts, this is already done but obviously not enough,
as we see in the very inequal distribution of wealth (in the form
of money as well as land).

## States Must be Primary Owners

As discussed, land cannot reasonably be owned, but to organise
its use, it is necessary to define a starting point.
This is naturally the state, as states traditionally define
themselves primarily by their territory, and it is now assumed
that a state exists with a defined territory and citizens living
there; and power to enforce rules or laws is delegated to the
state, unless there is anarchy.
(The question of how a state gets its territory will be ignored
here.)

**The state then by definition should own all of its territory.**
(The words "land" and "territory" are used interchangeably,
because also rivers, lakes and the sea might be used in similar
ways as solid land.)
The state may decide to keep land for common use, or to lend it
to a citizen for a defined time, the duration being part of the
contract. If it is lent, the value of the land (defining the
amount of tax) and the renter must be known.

Only real persons should be allowed to rent land, to prevent the
ownership from being hidden in obscure legal constructions and
passed on this way without knowledge by the society. This is no
hindrance to businesses, as they always can establish a contract
with the owner, for sublending. The responsibility for the use
resting with a person increases accountability; and the fact that
the death or incapacitation of the owner will automatically
return stewardship to the state, is only favourable to
responsible use of the land.

## Value of Land

To define the value of land (for taxing its use), a market is
required which can decide on that value, and as it is in the
interest of the state to find the upper limit of that value, the
market defining it should be as large as possible and therefore
public.
However, if land can only be owned by the state, its value cannot
be defined as a price agreement between equal bidders and
sellers, but only between the lender (the state) and borrowers
(renters).
The state will hold auctions, and the lending must be limited in
time, so that after a given period, other people interested in
the land may submit new offers.
If a borrower has built something on the land, but will or can
not continue the lease, they can sell it to somebody else, or to
the state for a price to be defined by the state.

## Universal Basic Income

To compensate its citizens for the expenses they have for renting
land from the state, the latter can evenly pay all of them a
Universal Basic Income (UBI), financed by the sum of all rents
from lending land.
This of course would result in no UBI at all, if nobody would
rent land from the state, and the more people rent land, the
higher the UBI would become.

If those owning buildings for living (which we call "landlords",
but they would not own the land by themselves, only rent it from
the state) increase the rent for apartments, the effective value
of the UBI would be reduced. To prevent this, the state itself
should provide sufficient space for living so as to block hiking
of prices by "landlords".
Actually, all citizens should be able to find living quarters
directly owned by the state, because surface required for living
is a basic commodity needed by every citizen, as we have
discussed at the beginning.
Only then UBI will really be able to be used by citizens for
purposes other than paying rent; otherwise, it might end up
mostly in the pockets of "landlords", with the state indirectly
supporting them.