|
I have thought some more on this question of land. I am coming into this discussion in the middle, as I simply haven't been reading submissions for several weeks.
We social crediters recognize something we call the Cultural Heritage as the biggest factor in production. Production is represented by various business organizations, each of which embodies a piece of the Cultural Heritage. Each of them, indeed, could not have been formed without the benefit of access to money, which is a social product. For that reason, we all by right are invested with BENEFICIARY OWNERSHIP of those organizations -- which means a claim to a certain share of their fruits. This ownership is expressed in the form of a National Dividend, but it is not expressed in the form of a tax on the business organizations.
Productive land (and I don't just mean agricultural production) is also a part of the Cultural Heritage. It has been cleared, ploughed, fertilized, excavated, raised, built on, etc., etc. for countless generations. We are by right invested with a beneficiary ownership in it, that is, a claim to a certain share of its fruits.
Our beneficiary ownership of production, in social credit, is expressed by a National Dividend to claim all its otherwise unclaimed fruits (and discharge all of its otherwise undischarged debts). Since it doesn't limit itself to the fruits of one or another factor of production or one or another piece of the Cultural Heritage, the social credit National Dividend ALREADY INCLUDES the dividend based on universal beneficiary ownership of the land that Jeff calls for.*
Michael
*This would be true even if we talked of primeval forest and so took the "Cultural" out. The social credit National Dividend would capture the fruits of that Heritage, too.
|
land
Reply to this message