Land Rent: the logic

Logic

One word summary
Property.

A logical definition of property

Two line summary
The concept of property is the foundation of all law, all mathematics and all science.
A logical definition of property implies land rent.

Political definitions are illogical
Political definitions of property are derived from political laws.
Political laws are derived from the sovereign will of the people.
The sovereign will of the people has never claimed to be logical.

Economics text books are illogical
Economics text books are all based on:
* appeals to authority ("famous professor X taught this")
* anecdote (case studies)
* over generalization (empirical date measured in one set of conditions being applied to other conditions)
* and obfuscation ("this ten thousand page treatise proves that...")
These are classical logical fallacies. Hence economic text books are illogical

Mathematics provides a logical definition
But there is an alternative: mathematics is based on a logical definition of property.
property \'pra-per-te\ n (Webster's Dictionary)
1
a : a quality or trait belonging and esp. peculiar to an individual or thing
b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses
c : a beneficial quality or power of a thing
d : an attribute common to all members of a class
Examples
"1" and "3" are properties of "4."
"1" and "3" together have the property known as "4."
If you have "4" then by definition you also have "1" and "3."
If you have "1" and "3" then by definition you also have "4."

Property = truth

Properties determine what "is"
If every possible property of a thing exists, then that thing exists.
Similarly, if a thing exists, then its properties exist.
Example
If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck quacks like a duck, and in every possible way it has every measurable property of being a duck, then it is a duck. Of if you have a duck, then you also have feathers, a bill, webbed feet, and all the other properties of a duck,

Properties determine what "is not"
Similarly, if "A" is alleged to exist then we simply test for the properties of "A."
If "A" does not exist then its set of properties does not exist.
However, "B" may exist with similar properties to "A", but if its properties were identical then "B" would be the same thing as "A"
Example
"Have a look at my pet duck"
"That is not a duck."
"Yes it is, look, it has a duck's beak and feathers."
"No, that is your dog with a duck mask tied on. It does not have webbed feet, yet it has all the properties of your dog (its shape, size wet nose, doggy smell, tendency to bark and sniff, etc.)"
"Oh yes, you're right, it is my dog wearing a duck mask. I can't fool you."

Property is the foundation of all reality
A test of properties is therefore a test of truth, a test of what is real. Properties and truth and reality are the same thing.
Everything else derives from properties.
Examples
Mathematics is based on properties
Theoretical physics is based on mathematics
Physics and chemistry are based on theoretical physics
Biology and all other sciences are based on physics and chemistry
Even experiences like love or fear or anger are made of properties: we know they exist because of their component parts: the ideas in our heads, the feelings in our chest and stomach, etc.
Computer programmers assign abstract properties to numbers and can thereby accurately model anything in the universe.

A house is a kind of property
Property is the basis of all reality and so applies to everything, even houses
Examples
A house is the property of a house builder.
The right to live in the house is the property of the person who paid for it.
The laws that enable this to run smoothly are a property of good government.
(Note to anarchists: this is government in its most abstract sense: a lone man on a desert island is his own government.)

How to measure properties

To measure a thing's properties, see what is different when that thing is not there.
This is basis science: test before and after, and see what changes. If the thing might have changed anyway, then have a control group without the thing you are testing.
Examples
Drug A claims to save lives, but a before and after test, or a comparison with a placebo, so how no obvious difference.
Drug B makes no claims, yet it is noticed that when people take it all their illnesses disappear.
Politician A claims to make the nation a better place. But the nation is no better than other nations when he is in charge.
Politician B makes no such claims, yet it is noticed that whenever he is there people are happier and work harder.
Land owner A claims to own the grass that grows in his field, yet it grew just as well when he was not there.
Land owner B creates better grass than before, so the improved grass is his property.

How to get what you want

Since a thing is defined as its properties, if you want a thing then you want its properties.
Examples
If you want better land then you want the people who want better land
If you want more jobs then you want the people who create more jobs.
If you want a property location to be valuable land then you want the people who make the property location valuable.

Why land rent
If you want buildings to be valuable then all the money you pay should go to the people who build and maintain them.
If you want a property location to be valuable then all the money you pay for that should go those who ensure a safe and happy community good roads and schools, etc.
Hence it makes no sense to pay landowner a single penny for the value of their location, all that money should go to the society as a whole.
The amount we are willing to pay each year to live in a location (separate from the amount we pay for buildings etc.) is called land rent.

Tax is theft
Workers create wealth. Government takes some of that wealth as tax.
Government did not create that wealth so it not the property of government. So taxation is theft.

Land prices are a charitable donation to the wealthy
Currently, the value of land rent is kept by the landowner. This does not increase the value of the land and so is merely a large charitable donation given by society to those who are already wealthy.

The value of tax = the value of land rent
Taxes are money paid to create a desirable location - e.g. a location with good roads, schools, policing, welfare, etc.
Taxation is therefore equal to the value of the bare land in any location.
The value of tax and land rent is therefore the same.

Ending taxation and charitable donations to the wealthy
Work is a property of workers. So by paying more to workers (i.e. by not taking their money as tax) more work is done.
By paying land rent to its owners - the government - instead of as a charitable donation to the wealthy - there is no need for tax, as the amounts are the same.
Note: a proportion of taxes are already paid by land owners. See the objections page for a more detailed discussion.

Land rent provides better information
Land rent measures the value of a location, and hence the value of the government that creates that value.
This provides a simple, objective, single measure of the value of any government in any region.
By comparing governments it is possible to objectively measure the value of any government decision.
Without land rent there is no objective way to measure the value of a government.

Notes
A (normal growth):
All figures are adjusted for inflation. 3% growth per annum - typical for a first world nation in a good year.

B (tax)
40% of GDP is typical government income (lower in Japan, higher in Scandinavia)

C (land rent growth) 7% growth per year. Actual growth could be much higher.

D (land rent 40% until debt paid)
40% of GDP until the initial debt is paid: i.e. the same proportion as with tax. Although land rent grows faster than tax, this is only because wealth is growing faster: every year we have more disposable income than when we paid tax. When the initial debt is paid, land rent then halves, resulting in an extra boost to growth.

E (land rent profit)
Land tent minus what the government needs. Government needs are assumed to be the same as before - that is, the same as would have been raised in tax. In the first example this is then reduced by ten percent to allow for full employment. In the second example it is not reduced at all.

F (remaining debt)
The initial debt is up to three times the initial GDP, but only on paper, and risk free. It increases by 3% per year, minus land rent profits.

What is the debt?
If land rent is charged on bare land, and the amount is equal to the value of that land, then its sale value becomes close to zero. naturally, land owners will oppose this unless they are fully compensated, and can also see long term profit in the change. The compensation would be in the for of bonds that mature when the economy grows. If the economy does not grow then land rent is a failure, we revert to the old ways, and land owners have lost nothing.

Why would landowners accept this?
Why accept this if they can get the same same return with more certainty by just rejecting land rent? Because they can make a much greater return by investing the money in the stock market that has been boosted by land rent's economic growth.

Why three times GDP?
This is a rough estimate of the value of bare land in a nation. For example, a house typically costs around four times the gross income of their occupants. The difference between "four times income" and "three times income" is the value of the improvements to the land. Note that land rent increases the value of improvements because they are no longer taxed.

Why is this debt only on paper, and risk free?
The debt is insurance to compensate for the loss of expected income due to the success of land rent. It is in the form of bonds to be paid after (e.g.) 20 years. If land rent does not cause the expected GDP growth then it would of course be abandoned, the land would resume its original value, and the insurance would not need to be paid. As with all insurance this is implicit in the contract.

Why increase it by 3% per year?
That was the pre-land rent economic growth, and hence what investors could expect to gain from their land. (If the price rises faster than GDP for very long then people become unable to buy houses and the market stagnates, pushing prices down again.)