We are owed compensation if we have no land

Welfare payments are a compensation for being landless.

Access to land is a natural right, and if we have been denied this right by others, then we are owed a debt and they (the landowners, in aggregate and those who arrange land rights) are responsible.

A remedy for the current arrangement of land inequality is the Land Value Tax, which discourages land ownership. We have a right to own our own land...

And since we have a right to own land, would it make sense for the Government to control a large portion of land and use the rent to pay citizens a dividend for this fact? The Government leases the land and with the income pays the money to the landless. If we have no land we are owed compensation from the Government.

If the Government is unable to establish that an individual has a sufficient quantity of land, the citizen is due a (perpetual, for as long as they are landless) payment in compensation. We are owed compensation for being landless.

We have a right to compensation for being without land, when others have easily sufficient land and resources are not scarce.

We only own land if everyone else has land

Since we have a right to life, then we must also have a right to land since we cannot live without land. Just as the denial of the right to life is a crime, under law, then by extension, the denial of the right to land is also a crime. It is a crime to uphold the property rights of a Nation or territory that does not provide land for all eligible individuals.

Someone who has committed a crime in the past may no longer be an eligible individual, in effect they are incarcerated.

If there are some who have no land, the land rights are not legitimate as they stand. The legitimacy of all land rights rests on all people have some land, so that they might live independently of favour of (deference to) the landed.

For land rights to be meaningful, everyone must have land.

If there are those without land in a country, then no one legitimately owns land. We only own land if everyone is provided for, with at least a sufficiency to survive. Our rights to land are in jeopardy if others do not have land.

We have a right to land because we have a right to life, and we can't live without land.

We need land to live and so therefore to deny the right to land (to exclude the landless) is a crime...

No one should be without land.

If we have no land then our natural rights have been denied

Access to land is a natural right. We should be able to have exclusive access to a parcel of land of our own, if others are able to deprive us of land. If we have no land, then we have not been granted our natural rights.

Land is a natural right, because without land we have no opportunity to live freely.

We are owed a plot of land because we have a right to life and without land we do not have the ability to sustain our own life without outside help. Without land we are able live by either selling our labour to buy food, or renting a field to grow crops, but in either case we require the consent of another person (to sell the food or rent the field); we are not able to live independently, as we should if we are granted our natural rights.

Equally and conversely, we do not have the right to prevent someone from access to land, so if we have a great amount of land and others have little, we have denied them their rights which we have no right to do; as in the Lockean Proviso.

Failure to have been granted a sufficient quantity of, or access to, land means that our right to life has been denied.

The use of land is a natural right.

We have a right to life and since it is not possible to sustain life without land, then we must too have a right to land.

A Land Dividend would equalise wealth

Progress is inevitable, people will always devise ways to improve their circumstances and these methods will always be communicated and shared, copied. Progress is unstoppable. There is no point fighting it.

In one sense, fiat currencies help alleviate the problems caused by the phenomenon of progress and development in that they provide a ready means to access Capital. If progress is made too quickly, and is too easily exploited by the managers and landlords (holders of the means of production, both instruments and subjects of labour) it means that the workers are not able to gain any advantage and it becomes impossible for them to get out of their landless situation. This is not to advocate the present banking system, only to indicate that inflation of the currency allows concentrated wealth to be diluted.

A Land Value Rent would remedy the problem of landlordism

The land owned by an individual will aggregate when they are able to lease the land for more than their living costs. Then, even with doing nothing, the person is able to accumulate more property which may also be leased out. In this way the first few people to reach the critical threshold for land aggregation will end up with a preponderance of the land.

The way to avoid this is to revoke the right for landowners to own the land for all time, they should only be ale to own the land for limited periods, after which it is put up for auction once more. This is better because then the owner will eventually be excluded from the land themselves. The aristocrats have not established their superiority for all time, it is only ever temporary.

If the cost to purchase the initial lease, in auction, is greater than it can be loaned out for, then there is no profit in landownership and the landlord will not be inclined to purchase the land in the first place. If it is not, the lessee, the tenant will want to purchase the lease directly from the State. Then, there can be no profit in becoming a landlord since the tenant will purchase the lease directly...

Permanent ownership is harmful because it means the 'owner' is able to inconvenience the others at no cost. Literally, it is a freehold. A Land Value Rent would be more appropriate than a Land Value Tax.

The rest of Society are owed rent on all owned property

The problem with the present system of land ownership is that land, currently, is owned until the end of time, forever. This is a problem because it doesn't allow for the fluidity that is required to allow change and is natural. Instead we should only be permitted to own land for limited periods. But what happens when the lease is up and we are required to purchase (lease) the land from the State once more, where does the money come from? It is issued by the Government. It is also received by the Government when renting out the land...

The scheme could be introduced by, first of all issuing fiat currency into the economy which could be means-tested in the initial stages. This would then be used by the population to rent properties from the State. This would be a 'wash' for those who currently have accommodation provided by the State at no charge.

Then, permanent ownership of properties is slowly revoked, most ownership would switch to something like a 50-year lease, or shorter. As the time approaches for repurchase the occupant will be given the option to extend for the next 10 years, perhaps at a charge. It is then that wider sections of the population begin to receive their Land Vouchers.

A Land Value Tax would create demand (need) for the State-issued Land Vouchers among the land-owning sector of the population.

Land Value Rent would mean that those currently owning property would owe, but, like everyone, would receive Land Vouchers. Suddenly the ownership of the land (the, into perpetuity ownership) begins to mean much less... but how would the (value of) the Land Value Rent be determined between differing properties? It would be a market between the Government and the population... the Government would sell to the highest bidder (with perhaps a concession to the incumbent tenant) the Government takes the highest price, even though it doesn't care about the money; there can be no fraud.

To make the transition would require, first the introduction of the Land Value Rent and secondly a secure means to issue the Vouchers to the population. Any citizen would be eligible for the vouchers.

What about lost savings? People regard their house as their own property and not something the State has the right to remove... the answer to this is for the scheme to be introduced gently, at a slow pace.

A property voucher scheme would enable property to be leased from the State

Since is it not legitimate for an item (or land) to be owned for all time, into perpetuity, then all items are rented from the rest. Then, it must come time eventually that the land we live on must be auctioned again and placed into the market.

It is the State that must auction the land, or other subjects of labour (means of production) which are purchased from everyone else...

Perhaps there could be a rule that the incumbent is able to retain the property with a bid of around 5% less than the competing bids?

We each would have a Land Purchase Credit, or Land Rental Credit which can be used to acquire land as required. So then we would each be given a particular stipend which we can choose to spend on land. Each year, we would be credited with, say, 100 units which can be spent on land which is leased from the State. They could be called Land Credits...

...all land would be leased from the Government and the State would be landlord for all properties. They could be exchanged between countries. It would be possible to sign away future credits so that a property can be secured for multiple years. Someone presently in a property would be required to sell it to the State and it would be profitable for them to dispense of the property before this eventuality.

The Land Credits would be issued so that we can each exclude others from certain property of our choice, purchased in the market. Essentially, a property voucher system.

The hoarding of land can be prevented with a property ceiling

We are best able to utilise the resources of the planet, for the good of mankind, by placing a limit on the quantity of resources which may be controlled by any one person. Where 'controlled' means the individual has the exclusive right to exclude others from the property...

People are able to have better access to the resources they need if there is a limit imposed on (the quantity, by market value of) their ownership. Owning too much means that others are excluded in a less than optimal way. It is better to make sure people can get access to resources, with an upper limit on ownership. An upper limit on land ownership means that others can gain fair access, which is advantageous.

Poor people can get access to land if to own an excess of land is made illegal. Perhaps to hoard land should be made a crime? It is better if we can prevent the hoarding of land.

Poor people would be able to get land of their own if rich people are forced to sell some of their property. Then, why not force rich people to sell (some of) their land?

Land would be more affordable if excessive ownership is made illegal

Real estate would be more affordable if the ownership of multiple properties were made illegal...

A law against multiple property ownership would reduce the cost of housing for people seeking to purchase their first home. The same applies to land, if ownership of an excessive amount of land is made illegal it would make it easier for those without land to acquire a small quantity, perhaps a share in a larger farm. Property would be more affordable if it is made illegal to own too great a quantity of land.

If excessive ownership of property is made illegal, then land and property would become more affordable.

Excessive land ownership should be fined

Either pay the Land Value Charge, or lose the land!

There should be a fine for excessive ownership of land... the word 'tax' in Land Value Tax suggests ownership of land has no negative connotations for others, and yet it does.

It is a problem if someone owns too much land, whereas it is not a problem if someone earns an income or purchases a product. A charge, or fine would reduce the problem of excessive ownership of land by individuals. A Land Value Charge, or Fine would be more appropriate than a Tax. If it is criminal, it should suffer a charge, or fine, not a tax.

It should be illegal to own an excess of property

Perhaps there should be a law against owning an excess of property? If someone owns property, be it rural or urban which exceeds what is a reasonable quantity (required) to survive, as measured by market value, should it be illegal? It should surely be illegal to own an an excess of the natural resources that we inherit...

It should be illegal to own an excessive quantity of land.

The land dividend is to protect those without land

A land dividend compensates those without land for the fact that, due to the pertaining allocation of resources, they require the permission of others (in an otherwise plentiful environment) to survive. Without either being able to rent land, or buy crops, those without land have nothing to eat. It is because of a lack of land that so many are dependent on others for their survival.

A land dividend would encourage equalisation of resources and make sure that the vulnerable are protected if they have no land...