Andy Burnham and the way to regional productivity

Andy Burnham  has mentioned land value tax as a specific policy. He is clearly thinking beyond  Mansion Tax which is already planned for 2028 but only applies to dwellings valued £2m value and above.  

This blog supports the idea of a land value tax on the value of all land and for a land tax on residential land it should be allowable against personal income tax paid. This will ease the transition of the  reform as it will take into account the ability of the owner to pay and for most will not be an extra tax burden.  Those unable to pay due to low income should be able to defer some of the tax until a sale. 

Fred Harrison the UK's leading advocate of land value tax has just released a YouTube video:  Why Andy Burnham Will Fail: Fred Harrison on Britain's Last Chance  on which he says that Burnham's idea of spreading prosperity from London and the south-east  will not work unless money goes out from London. Land value taxation of itself will not achieve regional prosperity.  Harrison explains that Ricardo showed that the spare  wealth of a country after the basic costs of survival gravitates towards the centre of highest  productivity and finds its way into land values (also known as economic rent). For the UK, London and the south-east is where it mostly ends up. Fairness dictates that London's wealth  should be spread out.

A very comprehensive way of achieving this is to start issuing  universal basic income (UBI) to every person in the UK  using the tax from the land value as a way of redirecting land wealth. This would channel the land wealth gains direct to individuals and households who would then have the choice of spending  it, rather than a council or a quango having that choice. The poor who rent would be quick gainers with new income but without land value tax to  pay. Regionally local businesses activity and investment would pick up and the prosperity of the regions would grow.  The UBI  would be the same for all and without means testing and its value would be greater away from London as costs and prices are often lower there.  Because UBI would be guaranteed into the future it would encourage people to spend and this would raise economic activity.  

Annie Miller in A Basic Income Pocketbook shows that it is likely that costs of the new UBI measure would exceed current welfare costs  so higher taxes on the wealthier would be needed. This would come from the higher value of the land  their larger and better located houses are built on. 

Increasingly taxing land and not buildings would mean that other taxes could be reduced.  Land values are a product of the whole community's success and it is equitable to share that gain for the common good. Taxes on work and on goods are  a disincentive to work and produce and they should be reduced.

Posted by Charles Bazlinton. Author: The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom 

Charles Moore on Tories and Labour

What are the two main parties' core beliefs? Lord Moore in The Spectator  The Spectator 1 June 2024 asks for clarification about:

 '...current confusion in which Tories hint at approval of socialist principles and Labour of capitalist ones,...' 

What clear choices are there for the ordinary voters on polling day July 4th?

Maybe the only clear choice is about competence? The decline in skills in managing public affairs over the long Tory regime after 5 prime ministers in 14 years does not inspire 'More of the same please'. Is there a chance that a fresh lot would do a lot better? Here's hoping... As Moore implies they are really playing a similar song with only slight variations and they don't have  anything very new to envision us with. Are the Lib-Dems any different?

If we are really in a capitalist system does that explain the growing need for food banks? If it is socialist why are the food banks needed at all with taxes the highest for 70 years?   Has socialism failed too?  Why is it becoming more difficult to buy a house on an average salary? Why are housing rents ever increasing? OK, we are in a mixed system - part socialist part capitalist - but are there any alterative tweaks to think about?

There is a system change that would begin to sort the inefficient running of the economy which the food banks and shortfalls of the NHS show up - after all,  technological success is not an issue so the issue is fairness. A new way would focus on where taxes comes from, how welfare is handled and how citizenship should be fairly recognised.

Tax reform is need to source a large input to the public purse from Land Value Tax  instead of from income tax and other taxes. The property market mirrors the speculative aspect of capitalism and brings  untaxed gains to homeowners when they have done nothing to produce the added land value. What such free lunch do renters get like that? Separating the land value from the house value  (about a quarter or a third of the Rightmove or Zoopla price) shows the value that should be taxed on an annual basis. The amount would need to match the average income tax currently paid so that for the period of the tax reform  any income tax paid would be a rebate allowed  against the charge for land value.  

There is an added green and a housing benefit to land value taxation in that it would encourage the development of land. A house could be enlarged to build rent-producing rooms under the same land tax charge. With more homes built to cover land tax charges on vacant land with planning permission, houses would become more affordable.  The failure to build enough homes has been a feature over decades  - land value tax is an incentive to build more - whilst Help to Buy schemes merely inflate prices by adding new money into the existing housing stock. 

Welfare reform should be included in this LVT tax shift by instituting a regular unconditional Universal Basic Income (aka: Citizen's Income). This should eventually replace most of the welfare benefits which are clearly inadequate given the food banks and housing benefit needed. The individual fine tuning of welfare benefits now needed would be  reduced  bringing large admin savings. The UBI would not be conditional on work and it would be provided for citizens only. These changes would make fairness for people a new feature of our socio-economic system, reducing the centralising nature of the state and curbing capitalistic power.  

Banking reform could add to the UBI sources (see this Blog elsewhere). For other banking reforms and how banking works see:  Charles Bazlinton - YouTube  .

posted  by Charles Bazlinton  author: The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom 

James Robertson

James Robertson the pioneer of alternative economics has died (Obit. The Times 18 Jan.    Guardian 6 Dec 2023 ).  Through his writing and lobbying he drew together several strands of pioneering reform such as government reform, environment issues, money creation, land value taxation, citizen's dividend, et al., which are now generally known as New Economics or Green Economics.  

From 'Creating New Money' (NEF 2000) with Joseph Huber, to his later broader-based 'Future Money - Breakdown or Breakthrough?' (Green Books 2012) he provided indispensable research for anyone lobbying for change from the flawed entrenched economics of the 20th century to a system more based on the common good. His life's work is accessed on his website which is an excellent resource for research into these and many other issues.

He shows how the wealth intrinsic to common resources generated by, or available for the use of society as a whole, such as money creation and the natural resources of the earth including land value, are captured by special groups of people for their private use. Meanwhile people whose ordinary work, enterprise and proportionately high taxation add to the wealth flowing from those resources  but often have little or no share in that wealth.

As an example of how he helped those who were promoting the same issues I recall a Land Value Tax conference in 2006. An academic speaker had explained LVT but was perplexed as to how it might be made politically acceptable. In the lunch break I spoke to James who arrived to address the conference later and said that no one has mentioned citizen's income (or C.Dividend) as a means of making LVT more acceptable. When he spoke later he kept referring to CI and ..'I will bring more detail later...' and ended by giving a comprehensive view of how the new economics might be achieved with CI. It was the first time I had heard CI and LVT mentioned at a public event. Since that time the issue has become international with CI experiments being conducted. Progress is being made.    

Posted by Charles Bazlinton author: The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom. The book covers many aspects of the New Economics.

Sunak vs Truss: Debt, Inflation and Levelling Up

The Conservative leadership contenders ask:  When does the Covid-induced public debt start to get paid off? What about inflation if we reduce taxes to ease household finances? How do you achieve levelling up?

A FT letter writer Mark Hofman in August 2020  said that in the example of Japan which has had huge public debt levels for a long time:

     'government bonds held on the balance sheet of the Bank of Japan are effectively the Japanese government owing the bond debt to itself...so why not put a line through those entries on each side of the balance sheet? The level of debt would be reduced without the        taxpayer having to pay anybody anything, and with nobody being poorer.' 

If there is a possibility of inflation due to this he says it can be resolved by raising the reserve requirements of commercial banks at the central bank (in the UK's case - the Bank of England). He asks: Why consider the conventional way of paying off this debt with taxes for generations, when there is a better way?

Beware of suggestions that governments are like households and must not spend beyond their income.  Householders are not like that as they cannot create their own money whereas sovereign govenments, with careful monetary control can do so safely, as Hofman describes. 

On levelling up:  Change how tax is raised by levying a small annual charge on the value of all land, including the value of the land footprint of all homes. At the same time any tax raised in this way would be allowed against a personal income tax liability. For many homeowers the total charge would not change. 

Benefits would accrue:

• House price rises - now with a land value levy - would slow or fall and homes become gradually more affordable since speculation would be damped down and a steadier market would encourage first time buyers. 
• Homes would become less attractive for pure investment rather than for living in personally. Recent governments just subsidise new buyers which raises the price of homes and brings developers more profit. The crazy price boom continues.
  
• More homes would be built as development would be encouraged - for example a house with a large plot would be built on to share the land value levy over new, extra homes. Or an extension to create a separate rentable flat. New homes would be built to low carbon standards. Countryside would be preserved.
• Renters would be helped as the land charge would be on the landlord. Landlords would be anxious to have their property occupied at lower rents rather than keep homes empty waiting for increased rent.
  

Levelling up at a stroke, for many. Those who are land rich and income poor, thus short of cash, would be allowed to defer payment until they sell the home. 

The young would be able to consider buying and homeownership would increase. Older people in large homes would be nudged into downsizing. The increasing wealth divide between homeowners and renters would ease.

For the common good we need such monetary and taxation policies. Which candiate, or party, will grasp these choice fruits?  

Posted by THE FREE LUNCH - FAIRNESS WITH FREEDOM Charles Bazlinton

             

Jubilee - A very suitable word?

Great words get borrowed and highjacked for quite different purposes.  'Jubilee' was originally 'a year of emancipation and restoration'  (OED) in ancient Jewish history when people who had lost their family land through debt and poverty went back to it with all debts wiped out. It was a time of  great rejoicing and was unmistakably introduced by people going through the land blowing ram's horn trumpets announcing 'Proclaim Freedom'. It was the ultimate levelling of wealth from the time of the previous Jubilee after which some people had prospered whilst others fell into poverty. See the Bible: Leviticus 25:8-10. The purpose of Jubilee was to reset the economic  imbalances and was pointedly political. It restored control to the people. 

There were not to be kings to accumulate wealth to themselves and their court, and the repetition of cycles of Jubilees would guard against permanent accumulations of land control and enable the poorest to become self-sufficient again. You were not able to purchase land ownership rights, only the harvest rights for limited years. The system guarded against anyone assuming kingly status through wealth which would endanger freedom and the common good. 

Amazing enlightened times! The entire Jubilee year was to be a holiday. Our recent Jubilee celebrations, whilst fairly acknowledging that our Queen as Head of State has been a benign and gracious holder of the office, achieves nothing in the spirit of the original Jubilee for ordinary people. Apart from one day's holiday. 

Maybe news from Ukraine will point the way to a revival  of a people-centred Jubilee ideal? Alexander Rodnyansky, a Cambridge Professor, is now Economic Adviser to  Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine and The Spectator 4 June 2022 reports: 

    'he says he is interested in establishing  universal basic income throughout Ukraine: a fixed cash payment for residents rather than a network of welfare benefits which leads to inefficiencies in the system...We could be the first.'  

Jubilee years have been celebrated - quite bizarrely given the origin - for some centuries to note anniversaries of rule by monarchs. Why not a people's Jubilee in the spirit  of the common good?  We are not able to re-apportion land ownership in our day but land values are identifiable and could contribute to a universal basic income. See elsewhere on this Blog as to how it could be done. Recapturing the 'Proclaim Freedom' spirit of the original idea with a Peoples' Jubilee by  establishing a Universal Basic Income (also know as Citizen's Income) is needed.  

posted by Charles Bazlinton, 4 June 2022   Author: The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom.    

Merryn Somserset Webb favours land value tax

In a philosophical article in Saturday's FT (4 December 2021) Merryn Somerset Webb writes that she 'favours land value tax'  as she explores aspects of ownership and capitalism.  She refers to land wealth as communal wealth.  The article is about  how selfish we allow our society to be.

Owners of land are gaining as 'house prices' keep booming everywhere. People and firms are putting their wealth increasingly into property and prices are responding - upwards. Just take note that every building deteriorates so the gain is in the underlying land value. Lloyds Bank's new chief Charlie Nunn is hoping to quadruple 'the budget for its private home rental market'  (FT 6 December 2021) which is great for landlord rents and the bank gains the security of the underlying land value gain but not the renters. 

Value in land is largely dependent on location, which is about the ease with which work can be found nearby, such as rail links, good roads, business employment, etc. These things are nothing to do with the land owner's skill - but rather utility providers' provision of good services and such things as planning permission. The land owner can make a desirable valuable house which takes cost and ingenuity but the land value is quite outside their ability to make any individual difference to, land value is a gift from society, the community around. It's just that owners get the gain but renters don't.

This quite unfair situation has another facet for end of life social care. The current plans (see Kings Fund) are for there to be an £86,000 cap on care charges. The scare is that homes may need to be sold to pay for care at some point.  Will a home be safeguarded?      

A much fairer method of paying for care is to tax land value. Almost every piece of land with or without a house or building on it has  value and a small percentage tax charged every year would go to providing end of life care for all. Those with the higher priced property would pay more which would be proportional to the gain in value that society has created on their land.  In the setting of land value tax a allowance below which no land value tax would be payable would be set, so that many poorer homeowners would be land tax exempt. Renters who will never have any prospect of land value gain and thus no land tax, would gain the universal state-provided care but not be charged at any time. Home owners would be paying over some of their lifetime property gains for their later life care as they pay the tax. 

These ideas should be seen in the context of wider tax reforms where income tax paid would be allowable against a liability for land value tax. A gradual tax shift from tax on wealth gained through work onto community inspireded wealth would happen. 

Fairness comes through using community inspired wealth to pay for community needs.

Charles Bazlinton. Author: The Free Lunch- Fairness with Freedom

Hartlepool levelling up: Was that it?

What did 'levelling up' mean in the Hartlepool swing to the Tories?  The Hartlepool constituency, returned a Tory MP Jill Mortimer, 'farmer and business woman', after a 50 year run for Labour. That day was also the vote for the Tees Valley mayor and Ben Houchen won a resounding victory. Perhaps the Mayor Houchen factor was at work. Perhaps it was that in  Hartlepool with the Labour candidate still an EU fan who wants a second referendum, and with Hartlepool  very strongly Leave, maybe that prompted the strong rejection. Who allowed that to happen?

Ben Houchen, in winning his first Tees Valley contest in 2017 as a Tory promised to nationalise the local airport which he did and it created many new jobs.  Nationalisation is a policy borrowed from Labour.  Houchen has always said he is locality oriented and the use of socialist policies shows he is a non-ideolgical Tory.  The Boris-Rishi government has supported his Tees Valley projects - including environmental climate change schemes - by directing spending to the area. Also Treasury North, which is a partial government departmental move to Darlington, is a rather socialist, state planning idea. It probably helps in all these local changes that Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak holds a nearby constituecy.  

Freemarket conservatives wanting small government (don't move but reduce the Treasury?), low borrowing and 'let the market rule'  are rare these days. Covid-19 financial support has meant Tory central government money is now always on tap for lots of schemes. The (allegedly) penny pinching austerity gloom of the Cameron-Osborne era is well gone, and now seen merely as anti-Labour sound bites, but which helped dampen expectations of government-directed productive investment which now the New Tories are unashamedly borrowing from Labour.  But remember: the high priestess of the free market, Margaret Thatcher secured a deal for Nissan in Sunderland in the 1980s with a  special central government money deal for Nissan.     

So the Conservatives are doing what is needed to remain in power whilst favouring neglected voters by boosting their local economy with cash handouts. Old fashioned pork barrel politics, as ever. The latest scheme is the Community Renewal Fund which will share £220m with 100 favoured places in a year and five of those are the five towns of the Tees Valley. Red Tories are in town.

The problem with such politics - sensible enough given the limited vision - is that only some groups of voters are favoured rather than producing a fairer outcome for all. Under Old Labour it might be such as union members,  managers of state institutions, and home renters; under Old Conservatives it might be shareholders, capitalists eager for state grants and home owners. 

When will overall fairness prevail? Instead of a hope that a trickle-down of government money may come my way via my Mayor, why not each citizen respected as contributer and beneficiary of a good recovering economy?   The previous blogpost on Universal Basic Income  illustrates how that idea of a payment to everyone unconditionally is well researched to be affordable - 'revenue neutral'. Even better an extra measure would be the funding of UBI to include land value tax charged on the land value underlying all homes, and allowable against income tax,  along with a reform of council tax. Renters would benefit as they would pay no charge, the landlord would. 

We need a re-set in our politics and economics in favour of fairnes for all, not just for instance the homeowners who are benefitting  from a housing boom. That would be better levelling up. Our society is becoming increasingly divided as defined by owning or renting a home. Renters are being sidelined as they have no unearned nest-egg accumulating on the value of the land with their house as homeowners do. We all contribute to our economy as we work and run things and a healthy economy raises house (actually land) prices, but that value is soley due to land ownership. Too bad if you rent your home, no level playing field for you from your contribution, it all gravitates down to the owner. What's fair in that?

Posted by Charles Bazlinton author The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom

 

Election 2019. Debt-free public funding: broadband, water, energy. Public debt mountains not needed....

The Labour party has said it will bring utility companies into public ownership:
         We will bring rail, mail, water and energy into public ownership to end the great privatisation  rip-off and save you money on your fares and bills. We will deliver full-fibre broadband free to everybody in every home in our country...
See: Labour Manifesto p7 . Subsequent reported statements say that they will issue government bonds to do so - that is: borrow money and pay interest on the new debt.  

Lord Vallance of Tummel (ex-BT Chair) writes in The Times 19 Nov 2019 that the reason BT was privatised was to access sufficient capital for technological transition to digital. He states that telecoms ranked lower than the NHS, police, defence etc. in the annual  spending round and says there is no reason to believe that these priorities would change if BT came back to public ownership. He clearly does not realise what a government of a sovereign state with its own independent currency can do, to provide tax-free, debt-free funds.  Free money can be issued for non-inflationary productive investment such as developing broadband, railways, etc. No borrowing from banks is needed at all, Lord Vallance. No queues. No begging bowls. Just careful management of how the money is handled. 

As Prof Richard Werner wrote back in 2010, specifically on broadband investment:
Government Money
        One principle in monetary economics is that money creation used for productive purposes is not  inflationary. It is therefore possible to finance the Broadband Initiative with the creation of government money, without anyone incurring any costs or debts, and without any interest burden. From an economics perspective this is indeed the most efficient way to fund such productive government expenditure  

George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, concurred with that same view through a Treasury briefing document in 2013 (see para: 3.34), that money creation can be carried out to finance fiscal deficits, thus:

      ' It is theoretically possible for monetary authorities to finance fiscal deficits through the creation of money. This would allow governments to increase spending or reduce  taxation without raising corresponding finance from the private sector.'  

All the main parties are into spending much more government money than in the austerity days. But none of them mention money creation as a tool for financing public needs. Instead there are scare stories about public debt mountains and more tax. But if pension funds had their utility assets bought up through debt-free funding (no debt mountain-building) they could invest the cash in productive industry and commerce - Hey! there's a new capitalist idea for financial wizards to think on. A resurgence of new and newly capitalised businesses to fund our pensions? 

To prevent a property market boom through the cash released from re-nationalisations, the Labour idea of land value tax on commercial property would be a wise move. (Labour Manifesto p50).     

Posted by Charles Bazlinton. Author: The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom   

Rev Michael Curry & that Harry/Meghan address. What's not to like about Fairness with Freedom?

Rev Michael Curry might have flung a door open for over a billion people on 19th May 2018 through his talk at the royal Harry/Meghan wedding. The intriguing possibility that society might be transformed through following 'love your neighbour as yourself' - 'the good of the other, for the wellbeing of the world, for us' unexpectedly showed up on a hot sunny Saturday in, of all places, an English royal palace. The setting was gilded with centuries of privilege. His inspirational words were like a honeyed dream which we do not need to wake up from because they are grounded in a deep reality - at least for those who want to be  awake to the possibilities. And the media is still echoing the Michael Curry impact. The root of the love the Reverend spoke of is in the unconditional love of God for the world as encapsulated by what Jesus achieved and by 'love of neighbour' and its guidelines from Moses for running a society - which Jesus gave his full backing to. 

The book The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom has the same theme. Anyone challenged by Michael Curry to reform society - by setting new standards for fairness and for freedom for more of us than can afford freedom now, should read it.

'Love your neighbour as yourself', is not just about giving more to charity. The issue is too demanding for that. What is needed is for the creative efforts of everyone to be channelled fairly to everyone, as all are given more freedom to be themselves. Charity was only a backstop under Moses' principles and most modern national welfare is effectively  institutionalised charity which is becoming far too big to be affordable. We should move towards a scenario  where there is less neediness to be solved by patronising donations. What is essential is a fundamental citizen-based fairness combined with a new freedom for all. 

The key for this is not an unfeeling set of rules. What is needed is feeling. How would you feel under the circumstances of the 'other'? Love your neighbour as yourself.  Fortunately the tide seems to be turning slowly, Tear Fund  a noteworthy charity is pressing for such reforms as The Free Lunch advocates. 

The Bank of England acknowledges the principles of monetary reform advocated by Huber and Robertson  (see page 44 The Free Lunch) and Prof Richard Werner, which would lift a financial burden from every citizen. Archbishop Welby is on the hunt for comprehensive economic justice which 'love your neighbour ideas' ideas would start to meet: Welby's Wishlist for Fairness  

'Love your neighbour as yourself' is not a mere comedic catchphrase, it's origins are philosophically founded in ancient, human, spiritual wisdom and has possibilities that would transform fairness for society and extend treasured freedoms to all, rather than just for the currently privileged. To follow such a paradigm would not only benefit the poorer with material benefit but would be doing the rich a spiritual favour, because as Jesus said: 'How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God'.  

A wedding. An enjoyable coming-together of two people, family and friends, and a Bishop who trumpeted an old idea to a global audience. Beyond the select wedding crowd in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, his 'love as fire' theme could just catch on for the common good, anywhere.

The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom  UK £3 (post free). 

Digital subscriber royalty: Facebook & Amazon. A Basic Income resource for the people

John D Rockefeller, through controlling oil supply, and Andrew Carnegie through steel supply, created hugely successful enterprises that grew on technological advances and expanding markets.  In largely controlling the market (i.e. monopoly), they were able to amass vast fortunes through the control of prices.     

The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom explains how such unfair situations can be resolved beyond anti-trust and fair competition laws - (which Rockefeller manipulated in his favour) and beyond the heavy taxation of profits (which accountants can conceal).  The book shows how to deal with natural and commercial monopolies which arise when people want a share of the good things of life which are held by a minority. Including such things as land, bank money creation, minerals, technological advances such as radio spectrum, etc.   

Hardened champions of capitalism might allege that the 'the market' must have free rein to bring the good life for all and thereby solve the socio-economic problems of poverty along with a fairer distribution of wealth achieved through tax. The last 20-30 years at least shows that they are misled and mislead. Some markets have a basic fairness about them with fluid supply matching flexible demand and steady or openly adjusting prices - the ideal world. But a free market will never bring fair distribution and  reasonable prices in a monopoly situation. 

In the case of land for instance, where everyone has a desire to have a home; due to our highly developed cities where high values relate to high demand, not many people can be satisfied. The way to tackle the land monopoly is to tax the value of land each year everywhere, use it for public goods and services and, or, distribute the proceeds in the form of a regular basic income. The tax, a type of rent paid by the freeholder (to the state that guarantees the owner's title), would resist the monopoly forces which now deprive many people of reasonably priced places to live. It would induce a greater supply by lowering prices, whereas schemes such as Help to Buy only add to demand by pumping in more money - with prices maintained or rising. 

The book examines several monopoly situations that could be addressed in a similar way.  To the list can now be added what is happening as the internet giants of the past 20 years are coming of age and clearly paying very little tax. Philip Aldrick writes about this in The Times   'In the era of digital monopolies we are being taken for suckers' . He examines the way our personal data is being harvested free and sold on, bringing huge profits for such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. 

According to the principles outlined in The Free Lunch for monopolies there could be a case of the state charging these near-monopoly digital firms relating to their national user numbers and distributing it in the form of a basic income to all citizens.  The value of the product they are handling, our data, has arisen purely through our initial action of signing up so it is a fair deal for us to be given a share of the profit we are the origin of. 

It might also make the data privacy issue clearer so that if I were to take an annual fee for signing up with Facebook I would also sign up to allow Facebook to crunch my data for sale to others.  Facebook makes $16bn net annual income of which say a 33% fee (appx $5bn) divided by an estimated 2bn users worldwide would give subscribers $2.5 dollars pa. Not a lot, but given the total income of the digital giants is around $100bn the aggregate fee for most people could be over $12 pa, merely considering the new digital firms.  But digital marketing information capture started with digitally-read plastic loyalty cards, so clearly any firm or organisation attracting subscribers can exploit customer data for profit and should acknowledge that potential with a annual royalty to the subscriber.  Thus to be fair to the digital giants (they are not a special case) any profit-oriented organisation or even non-profit wanting to sell on personal data should give a royalty to the subscriber.     

Our society is now dependent on the digital way of business - Amazon, Facebook, banks, utilities, retailers, etc, etc,  - so it would be invidious to merely select their own subscribers for the basic income payback. What is needed is for governments to receive the income stream, from a digital subscriber levy or royalty on every listed subscriber and to pass it on as a part of a national basic income scheme (a.k.a. Citizen's Income; Citizen's Royalty). 

To quote the book, The Free Lunch, wealth sources arise:
  'a successful society generates them...are usually limited in supply... are vital to modern living, they are in high demand and are valuable'. 
This new digital wealth source arising entirely from us as individuals and from our actions is waiting to be appropriately redirected back to us via a basic income.  Taxation justice for digital monopolies would start be addressed. Such is a way to a fairer society. 

The book is at a new special price of £3 inc p&p UK      

Posted by Charles Bazlinton. Author The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom

What John Kay & Citizen's Income Trust agree on about basic income

Professor Kay thinks basic income for all (not means-tested / tax-free / regular) is unaffordable. His article  (Intereconomics 2017/2) carefully analyses several international proposals, but it does not take full account of the work of the UK's leading advocate for basic income the Citizen's Income Trust. CIT is confident that their revenue-neutral scheme would make a positive start on the road to a larger regular income than their initial scheme allows for. As they say in their critique of John Kay's investigation: 'What matters is the direction of travel'. CIT's scheme retains many existing welfare benefits - essential due the the low level of basic income needed to be revenue-neutral, but it is only a start. John Kay seems to assume a full 'living wage' basic income must be affordable immediately or he won't consider it relevant: 'basic income is a distraction from sensible, feasible and necessary reforms'. Both he and CIT acknowledge there could be sources of revenue yet untapped for a full basic income, but whereas Kay shies away from the political difficulties of that, CIT sees the start of an evolutionary reform away from the complexities of current welfare and its disincentives to work.           
One effect of a citizen's income is that some will use it to pay for better housing with rents and house prices likely to be pushed up. It is fairly clear that the incentives given out by recent governments to first-time buyers are a factor in rising house prices. A new source of income from a regular basic income would enable buyers to afford larger mortgages thus adding to the price hike. For every new £100 per month available at 2% interest another £20,000 of mortgage is freed up, driving straight through to rising prices and rents.

This blog has always advocated an holistic approach to citizens income to prevent bad side effects. After all if the housing market is encouraged to let rip even more through a basic income aimed to alleviate poverty, what help is that to the poor?

This is not the state planning for citizens
but citizens planning for themselves, 

empowered through a basic income.

To block that perverse effect of such a benign thing as basic income, what is needed is the levying of land value tax. This to be charged annually on the underlying land value of the building + land plot. It would have a braking effect on house prices as property owners who could not afford the levy would sell. Mortgage providers whilst assessing the added basic income would have to consider the expense of a regular land tax levy and this would reduce the potential of greater credit, which would lead to price restraint, and not, like the government help-to-buy schemes, a price bubble. 

The levying of LVT would raise a fresh source of government revenue concentrated at the higher property value end (see below). It would address the acknowledgement by both John Kay and the CIT that more revenue is needed to make a basic income more effective against poverty. The national pot to run a comprehensive welfare system founded mostly on basic income is currently limited. But the time is approaching when the the huge shift of younger people excluded from property ownership through unaffordability, will translate into a ballot box revolt in their favour. If we are to continue to believe in a fair society, the haves - the larger property owners - sitting on the accumulating nest-egg gains in their land values, will eventually have to release some of these sooner than at their demise through estate duties.

Land values, as clearly spelt out in The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom arise from the efforts of us all and are a common resource to be shared. A good start to implementing LVT would be to make a regular charge on a percentage (say 25% representing the land) of the property's value. For political acceptability the overall charge per household would need to be cost neutral for the bulk of hometypes: thus whatever was paid in LVT would be an allowance against a homeowner's income tax. Those in high priced properties having lower earnings would need to consider selling up which would bring a downward pressure on the market and help alleviate the housing shortage. The net LVT raised would go towards increasing the basic income for all. As well as estate duty, transaction taxes such as Stamp Duty could also be abolished and bring a new liquidity to the housing market to the benefit of those needing larger accommodation but prevented by the existence of many under-occupied homes. The Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings owned by companies is legislation that taxes total property value and would need modifying to catch land value only, to adapt it for LVT purposes.   

For the hard case of property-rich / income-poor homeowners with a liability for LVT greater than their income tax liability a deferment scheme should be allowed so that the accumulated  LVT would be a registered charge against the property, payable on the next sale.  

Whilst we must be grateful to John Kay for crunching the numbers, the philosophical and moral case should be addressed. The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom  makes the case for putting the citizen at the focus of politics. This implies the acknowledgement of particular rights for people and the expectation of particular responsibilities from them.  A basic income is essential if this concept of  a new 'citizen focus' is to have real meaning. This is not the state planning for citizens but citizens planning for themselves, empowered through a basic income. It is a combination of increased fairness and increased freedom for everyone.

Posted by Charles Bazlinton. Author: The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom  

Welby's Wish List for fairness. A new mandate from the IPPR rooted in the common good.

The IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) has published its interim report 'Time for Change: A New Vision for the British Economy'. Archbishop Justin Welby is leading the publicity with an FT article 'What sort of British economy do we want for our children?' [Digital title: British society deserves an economy rooted in the common good']. He continues the May/Corbyn themes (our last blogpost):
Theresa May, PM: 'We will make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few but for every one of us.'
Jeremy Corbyn, Opposition Leader: 'For the many, not the few'.

Welby calls for comprehensive economic justice - socially, regionally, generationally, environmentally - and from the IPPR report highlights his priorities: the need for reform of the education system; a fairer tax system; decarbonisation; improvements in public and private pay and the expansion of the housing stock. He believes most people want a system working in the service of human flourishing and the common good and asks why are we hearing 'Why are so many people so poor when others are so rich?' and 'Why are young people going to be poorer than their parents? 

An interesting aspect of the report is its criticism of recent economic policy.
We have experimented with bold monetary policy, but are constrained by pre-Keynesian fiscal orthodoxy. It points out the significant cuts in public spending due to government austerity programmes and says that austerity has not worked well. It suggests that monetary policy has been majored upon but helpful fiscal policy has been neglected. It wants government-initiated investment for growth and monetary policy to be coordinated to redress this, with the Bank of England advising on the integration of monetary and fiscal policy. Personal note: Ask a high official at the Bank (as I have done) if it would be possible to  invest in an industry by creating money in the QE manner - at no interest and no repayment - and they will affirm that it can be done. The IPPR obviously thinks so too and wants a change. It wants the hands of the Bank untied so that it can join in to help the economy in new ways. 

Most items on the Welby Wish List could benefit from ideas promoted on this blog over the years. Some of these are indeed mentioned in the report, which is a strong vindication of the views of book The Free Lunch- Fairness with Freedom. Such as: Education reform using monetary policy to fund education grants (Prof. Richard Werner); improving pay by  universal basic income ; a fairer taxation system which also helps the expansion of the housing stock through the incentive for development through a new land value tax .

Under the final heading (IPPR p81-83) 'Inequality and public purpose'  the report challenges the way we have measured success over the last 50 years and includes: 
'..inequality is largely a result of the ability of economically powerful groups in society to extract ‘rents’ or incomes beyond those earned by their economic contribution'. 
This gets to the heart of the matter in the way of the principles of The Free Lunch. In the vital matter of banking  (IPPR p80):
 'new insights into how the banking system creates money in modern economies, and therefore the role and limits of government or central bank monetary policy'.
The IPPR needs to look further into Richard Werner's New Paradigm in Macroeconomics who is arguably the first modern economist to have this insight. 

A banking problem from the report shows how only 5% of UK bank lending goes for businesses (15% in the Eurozone) with most going to land and property lending:
'The bulk of real estate loans and mortgages do not increase the productive capacity of the economy or contribute to growth; instead their primary effect is to drive up asset prices'.

To redress the bank lending imbalance the IPPR wants regional banks with 'geographically bounded  mandates to support the local economy' . 
It is happening already! The Hampshire Community Bank is likely to be the UK's first such regional bank and it is designed to that pattern. Additionally, being owned by a charitable foundation it will use its profits for the common good in its area and not for the high staff salaries and bonuses so roundly criticised in the IPPR report and by Archbishop Welby. Hampshire Community Bank in its whole ethos, aims to change banking for the better. Banking for the common good.  The bank, whilst not open for business yet, is currently in its licence application stage under the Bank of England's PRA. Such distinctive banks are needed across the UK. These new banks will play one part in a greater fairness for all.

With political parties broadly united over the fairness theme, and with the IPPR's excellent report spelling out some telling home truths over broad areas of economic life, the prospects that something serious for fairness will be done, are good.

Posted  by Charles Bazlinton. Author : The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom.  Director: Local First CIC which is promoting Hampshire Community Bank.

8 June 2017 Election Surprises?

Party manifestos, according to Free Lunch principles, should tackle the monopolistic tendencies arising in society.  The moral basis for this is from common threads found in biblical, enlightenment and liberal values and concern human rights, equality and freedom. As the political parties ply for our votes in June how do they measure up to the implied 'fairness with freedom' ? 

The core aim of The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom is the common good. The book suggests ways to move towards a society where each citizen is a beneficiary of the resources of nature and those arising from community-inspired schemes. The book is anti-monopoly and what is termed rent-seeking: meaning the hunt for gain sought by monopolists. Extreme disparities of wealth and poverty are the outcome in a society where control of monopolies is lax. Enlightened politics will reduce rent-seeking outcomes. 

• How are the current political parties matching up with the aims of reformers who desire the sharing of monopoly resources via a universal income for all?  
• What do they prescribe to redress the unfairness of the land monopoly: For example what about the land value gains of home owners compared with none for renters?
• What about the resource of further education now being charged for through student fees when it used to be provided free as a common provision from the public purse?
• What about the huge credit-creating monopoly of banking which neglects small business loans as too small and unprofitable to bother with? 
• What about the ability of government to create its own money to fund public expenses for public services, safely and without inflation?
• What about extending the voting franchise to younger people?

It is natural to want monopoly rights. It makes for an easy life. Owners of homes share in the land monopoly through the valuable nest-egg that builds up over the decades associated with the underlying land value of their home.  Fred Harrison points out that:

'... owners of high-value homes are able to recoup what they pay in taxes through rising property prices. ...enjoy tax-free use of schools and hospitals... Low income earners and families that rent their homes...carry the cost of the infrastructure investments and public services that enhance the value of the homes of the rich.' 

How fair is that? What do our political gurus recommend about this particular inequality which creates a constant welfare burden?  

Universal Basic Income (Citizen's Income / Citizen's Royalty)

• The only party wanting to introduce this is the Green Party.  They would create a pilot to test the idea. 

The land monopoly: home owning or renting

• Labour and the Liberal Democrats both mention land value tax as a tax reform measure. This would retrieve the gains accruing to the land values in property prices for the public purse and allow lower taxes on income and goods or as a substitute for council tax.  
• The Greens and Labour would introduce rent controls. This would be a protection for renters as a useful half-way measure until a full land value taxation scheme was implemented payable by landlords.
• The Tory manifesto policy for care in later life was to be paid from a home sale without limit above a £100k house value. The enforced U-turn, in days, shows the political danger of taking land value gains. Whilst not having the universality of land value tax for all land, the idea that property gains should fund the care is a reasonable quid pro quo, but to have to individually account for each care package and each property is probably a bureaucratic path best not travelled, besides introducing a variable charge/cost (aka 'taxation') for every case.      
• Bedroom tax aboliton (now a liablity of council house renters)  is proposed by the Greens, Labour, the Lib-Dems and UKIP.

Student tuition fees  

• The Greens, Labour and UKIP plan to abolish student tuition fees and would introduce maintenance grants (UKIP for poor students). 
• The Lib-Dems, the original champions of the abolition of tuition fees who reneged to their great downfall after being in coalition, propose bursaries for nurses and grants for poor students.
• The Tory proposal is: forgive loan repayments for teachers; provide access to grants for technology students & 'financial support that offers value for money'. This one looks 'interesting' with the news that student debt interest rates will rise from 4.6% to 6.1% this year. Andrew Greenwood (FT letter 19 April) wonders why the Swedish model is not followed with the cost of student loans as per the cost of government borrowing at 0.34%?     

Voting age to 16 

• The Green Party, Labour, the Lib-Dems and UKIP all want this. 

Local Banks 

• Labour will get the Post Office to establish a Post Bank with full banking services in every community. They also propose regional development banks. 
• The Lib-Dems will 'Require the major banks to fund the creation of a local banking sector dedicated to meeting the needs of local SMEs'. 
• The Tories propose British Business Bank branches in several major cities for SME lending needs.

Monetary reform  No parties make any suggestion about using government money creation powers to fund some public expenses. Instead the arguments are about balancing the books for borrowing, taxing and spending. Labour suggests borrowing for extra infrastructure investment because interest rates are so low - it is bound to pay off. But no one makes the case for creating the money as an extension of the QE creation process to pay for such expense without debt or interest to repay to banks. 

Lord Turner is an exponent of this e.g. deficit financing (Book: Between Debt and The Devil) as is Prof Richard Werner e.g. broadband investment.  There is no reason why just as quantitative easing is used to create money to buy back government debt or to buy commercial bonds, that it could not be used to nationalise the water companies (a Labour Party idea but bought through bonds) or to fund general government spending. The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England would need to take note of any money supply implications and outcomes and act as necessary to prevent adverse economic effects - as they do now with QE. Student education could be a modern case for debt free, interest free government money creation. No more student tuition fees.  This would be a monetary reform which only hurt the big banks.  Where are the far sighted politicians to start controlling this monopoly power? 

With the early solid Tory lead appearing to slip the contest may be more open than we ever thought. World wide electors surprise us. Will June 2017 UK be yet another one? 

Posted by Charles Bazlinton author The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom. Director of Local First CIC 'Promoting Local Banks' 

Conway & Giles: Election Boldness & Challenge...and so say all of us.

The 2015 election was dominated by the scare stories about the irresponsible plans of Labour against the wisdom of austerity-promotion by the Tories. Electioneering half truths, as usual.  This time the 'leader competence' issue (May vs Corben) is the main Tory theme so far.  Labour is proposing £60bn extra spending for the NHS, education and scrapping university tuition fees. The Tories are using 'nonsensical'  as a favourite word to describe Labour policies and so far Labour poll figures are inching up (but still low), but there are 3 weeks to go. The Lib-Dems are also planning to spend more on health and education. Fuller manifestos are yet to appear.

The ways of financing more spending may not give the Conservatives so much traction as earlier. We have Donald Trump promising mega-spending and US ideas may travel to the UK. The old austerity scare seems to have changed and may be ineffective with voters. Labour is promising to spend to invest.  They say they will establish a national investment bank to release extra funding - different to the British Business Bank?  But also,why not, for the benefit of local economic growth at minimal cost, encourage the establishment of  local community banks?  See this new venture. 

Ed Conway (Times May 12, 2017) 'Wanted: Some bold ideas to fix the economy' calls for radical action such as: replacing council tax with a proper land value tax; repeal of the Town and Country Planning Act - that 'simply gold plates nimbyism'; giving the Bank of England a mandate to 'target national economic output instead of inflation'. Conway thinks that the opposition should promote such radical ideas and - even if they lose the election as the polls suggest - at least they could introduce some fresh ideas into UK politics to our general relief. Let's have a proper debate over quite different issues. Please. Conway mentions that the monetary system has failed to kick-start the economy, but doesn't mention trying Government deficit financing (see Lord Adair Turner: Monetary Reform ) - maybe Labour's spending plans will incorporate something of this?  Then the Tories may surprise us with radical thinking as per the rumours of talks with Lord Glasman ('Blue Labour').    

Chris Giles (FT 12 May 2017) 'A challenge for May: reward effort over inheritance' taunts the May appeal for the 'ordinary working British families' . The Tories have borrowed from Labour the idea of capping energy bills - i.e. don't let free markets run on. Very UnTory. Giles highlights the roaring house prices of several years  (much boosted by Tory government help) and says that something must be done by a government aiming to benefit ordinary working families to make homes more affordable.  Will they do such an UnTory thing as to knock house prices?  He quotes Prof David Miles that there is no upper limit to house prices relative to incomes especially given the inheritance benefit of the current tax situation, and given that building is artificially constrained by lack of new land. Conway says that to counter the growing wealth disparity arising from favouring comfortably situated home owners for years, Mrs May needs to build on the green belt and raise more inheritance tax on property. This would really be UnTory if it happened. How reforming is Mrs May to be?

Or will Labour and the Lib-Dems demonstrate they care more about the growing minority of left-outs? There are a growing number of home renters who despair of home ownership and students who face large university debt to pay off before ever hoping to save for a house deposit. This is a radical change happening now in the UK and politicians need to tell us what is needed to bring us back to earlier fairness.  Prof Richard Werner in New Paradigm in Macroeconomics (p340-1) promotes the idea of government credit creation of $100,000 for each child born to spend on such productive things as education. Why are not for such ideas as his and Lord Turner's to be seriously proposed by opposition parties with 'nothing to lose'? They might actually gain traction. Three more weeks of dreary party bashing? Can't someone raise the intellectual game?

Posted by Charles Bazlinton. Author: The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom.
Director Local First CIC - Promoting Local Banks         
         

Mark Wadsworth exposes Margaret Thatcher's Great British Property Brake Off

The need for wider media coverage on a drastically fairer tax system grows. The start of this was Henry George's seminal work on how to fund the services needed by the community using the community's self-generated land values.  It would involve charging freeholders/landowners an annual levy (LVTax) on land value only, quite apart from the value of a building built on the land. (* 'Annual Ground Rent'). Modern developments of his ideas involve making counterbalancing reductions in income tax and other such counterproductive burdens on creative work. 

Mark Wadsworth has written a short and comprehensive article on UK property market history which shows how political moves over the last 30-40 years have warped the market in favour of those Baby-Boomers who were fortunate enough to have been buying their homes since about 1970. Before then several regulations kept the lid on wild property booms.

In an unfettered property market the location value of a building plot rises to what Wadsworth calls 'unregulated' high values. A monthly or yearly manifestation of land value is rent. Now rent controls imposed since 1918 meant that rents were kept lower than otherwise for decades. The knock-on effect was that freehold prices were also kept lower enabling potential home-owners to compete with private landlords, leading  to owner-occupation rising from 30% to 60%  (1945-1980s). Also governments, pre-1970s, by building were adding to the affordable rent social housing supply which meant less call on the taxpayer through little need of the rent subsidy known as housing benefit.   Mortgage restrictions on borrowers (loan/income ratios) were about half current levels so there was reduced ability for buyers to bid up prices. Higher value homes were taxed though Schedule A taxation (to 1964) and Domestic Rates (to 1989).  

But these benign conditions did not last. The regulatory brakes started being let off the property market when Mrs Thatcher and Messrs Blair and Brown dismantled the above restraining forces and property prices rose high and higher to their unregulated values. Low earners, even mid-earners, are excluded from buying for themselves and this has reversed the decline in private renting - down from 50% to 9% (1945-1990) up now to 18% (2014).  Wadsworth does not mention the additional London effect of more recent years whereby new foreign/company freeholders have increasingly been bidding up property to park their wealth in a safe haven - then to add insult to the priced-out ordinary Londoners leaving many such properties unoccupied for long periods.  

Wadsworth's article is a succinct summary of historical politico/real estate wisdom, and the recent meddling. The meddling has had an expensive effect on everyone's taxes as welfare support is needed by people who are being priced out of affordable housing by the 'Baby Boomers...[who] genuinely believe that they are somehow morally superior because they 'rolled up their sleeves and paid off their mortgage' '. This is a huge social issue. It is coming home to roost for the growing number of renters who may need tax funded housing benefit to survive - despite themselves having to roll up their sleeves but still unable to pay the rent. Maybe the tide is turning with prices of London properties declining - partly due to specific property tax charges by Chancellors desperately needing funds to counteract the hugely expensive welfare effects flowing from the flawed housing system. 

But the property market bandwagon will continue to career dangerously on unless we adopt Henry George's insight of taxing land values. The need for an affordable home for everyone is too important to be tied up with the inevitable involuntary land speculation that every home owner is party to when they start to purchase.  For the sake of a more equitable society, everyone needs to feel the effects of some or all of these: rent controls; land value tax with lower income tax; property lending restrictions and increased house building. Whether the effects will be seen as benign or not will depend on how favoured we already are.    

*Annual Ground Rent  
Fred Harrison and Mason Gaffney have written a book Beyond Brexit: The Blueprint  which uses the term Annual Ground Rent to describe land value tax. AGR neatly describes LVT as the regular charge morally due from all landowners/homeowners to contribute to public services.  The book has been enthusiastically reviewed by The Georgist Journal ( March 2017 print copy) which also contains Mark Wadsworth's article.  
POSTED BY Charles Bazlinton. Author THE FREE LUNCH - Fairness with Freedom

A Citizen's Income for all would fairly address immigration too

The Occupy movement of 2011: ''we are the 99%'', fingered the top 1% in terms of income and wealth (25%/40%). Economist Joseph Stiglitz had published a paper in May saying these 1% are typical of the wealthy though history who whilst taking to themselves the best of education, doctors, houses and lifestyles, do not realise until too late that their fate is tied up with how the other 99% live.

Slow forward to 2017. Are lessons being learnt? Not if the Prospect magazine February 2017 article 'Voting out' by Tom Clark is a guide. Clark reviews a couple of books Against Elections (David Van Reybrouck) and Against Democracy (Jason Brennan). Apparently in the future we may need to be either a liberal or a democrat: 'The educated bourgeoise will put its own liberty ahead of other people votes'. Already in the US it seems that these trends have form, witness the deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters taking place. In late 2016 a court struck down laws having  'discriminatory intent'. Onerous regulations around voting can prevent or dissuade electors to enter their vote. Beware. Clark quotes a Daily Telegraph article by Ian Cowie who in 2011 proposed limiting the vote to those who pay tax. The recent Brexit and Trump votes may bring more such ideas aimed at those who didn't get the vote 'right'. The time is ripe for the issue of 'citizenisation' to be taken seriously - a central issue of the book The Free Lunch - Fairness with Freedom.

If the powerful really are so concerned about loss of their economic status quo that they will resist popular moves to level the playing field a little, what should we do? Justin Welby Archbishop of Canterbury  in The Times (11 Feb) when launching his book Dethroning Mammon, says that the trickle down effect of letting the rich make wealth in the hope that some gets to poor, has been shown not to work and thus the rich should pay more tax. Fair enough as far as it goes but how do you get permanent poverty alleviation?

One part of the solution is a Basic Income for all   (also known as Citizen's Income or Citizen's Royalty). This involves a regular, non-means-tested payment for everyone. The New Statesman quotes a scheme for the UK having an age-graded payment from £56 to £142 per week to all, even children, (leaving in place housing benefit and disability allowance). This payment would be instead of child benefit, income support, jobseeker's allowance, national insurance and state pensions.  It would be nearly revenue and cost neutral and would massivley cut bureaucracy. Most importantly it would remove the current disincentive to work for those on benefits currently who face swingeing losses through tax should they get a job. An additional benefit from this, with immigration being a worldwide issue, the payment of a basic income to all citizens - having a valid national identity - should allay fears of  'welfare immigration' at least.

However, whilst this is the obvious and simple solution to poverty, an adverse effect would be that in giving cash to all, some of those who receive it as an addition to an already sufficient income may use it in the housing market. A basic income for many such will enable them to do a property upgrade and thus fuel house price rises. Law of unintended consequences: those people who now rent and are just below the property buying level will find their hope of having their own roof over their heads rather than a rented one, pulled away from them.  And the irony would be this was caused by a measure that set out to help the poorest who are overwhelmingly renters of their homes!  We are increasingly a divided nation of home owners and home renters.    

The answer to this to levy land value tax on all freeholds. This would cover the land value of the plot and not the building value - a tax on say 30% of the 'house price' seen on property websites. There could be a basic tax free 'homestead allowance' allowance before tax is due to cover houses below the average value. The next step is to set the land value tax liability against any income tax paid so that the net, after-tax, income of most individuals and households would be unaffected. For property rich / income poor people the payment could be deferred until eventual property sale. Inheritance tax might be reformed at the same time. It should be possible for the general mass of taxpayers to be relatively unaffected. Taxing land would also bring land forward for building homes which would solve another problem.

As the Archbishop says the richest should indeed cover the bulk of the cost. A problem in making a real difference to poverty and maintaining freedom for all is, of course, human selfishness. If I am to be stung with just a little extra tax because I am fortunate enough to own a freehold property, should I vote for that as one of the 99%? Archbishop - what would you advise?

For a discussion of basic income, land value tax, and general issues of citizenisation, see The Free Lunch - Fairness and  Freedom.  A basic income is currently being tested in Finland.