I'm wondering...
When I think about it, to provide an average person living now in the UK they would require a basic level of income of 140 pounds per week. This would be the amount if spent, during the winter months, entirely on "heating and eating" at a reasonable level.
Instead of relying on the inefficient, and unfair to individuals who actually need their income to live, variations in income, corporation and other taxes, it could be stated that a much more egalitarian system could come from a half-form of land nationalisation. The method by which this could be enacted is by charging the main occupier/user of land/property 1% or so of that property's value as compensation to the rest of the population for depriving them of the use of said properties.
Most people, the vast majority of the population in fact, would only pay a hundred pounds or so in rent/land tax a year, while the total of this rent/tax could be redistributed to every adult citizen such that they would each receive £140, or more, per week. Other taxes would be at a very low level, as would other benefits and pensions.
However, the main gripe with this system is twofold in that it sounds awfully beuraucratic and how do you evaluate the value of property after some time after the system is established.
Oh, by the way: why don't we pay farmers and landowners a stiped towards covering their land with trees and wind farms? Pigs etc live indoors and we can import much of our wheat etc.
When I think about it, to provide an average person living now in the UK they would require a basic level of income of 140 pounds per week. This would be the amount if spent, during the winter months, entirely on "heating and eating" at a reasonable level.
Instead of relying on the inefficient, and unfair to individuals who actually need their income to live, variations in income, corporation and other taxes, it could be stated that a much more egalitarian system could come from a half-form of land nationalisation. The method by which this could be enacted is by charging the main occupier/user of land/property 1% or so of that property's value as compensation to the rest of the population for depriving them of the use of said properties.
Most people, the vast majority of the population in fact, would only pay a hundred pounds or so in rent/land tax a year, while the total of this rent/tax could be redistributed to every adult citizen such that they would each receive £140, or more, per week. Other taxes would be at a very low level, as would other benefits and pensions.
However, the main gripe with this system is twofold in that it sounds awfully beuraucratic and how do you evaluate the value of property after some time after the system is established.
Oh, by the way: why don't we pay farmers and landowners a stiped towards covering their land with trees and wind farms? Pigs etc live indoors and we can import much of our wheat etc.
posted by Legal Smeagol at 7:30 AM
