Real Estate 4 Ransom

Real Estate 4 Ransom

2011, Economics  -   70 Comments
Ratings: 8.27/10 from 62 users.

Real Estate 4 RansomReal Estate 4 Ransom is a documentary about global property speculation and its impact on the economy.

Real Estate 4 Ransom considers the changing motivations behind property investment and challenges the notion that the Global Financial Crisis was caused by bank lending alone.

Shot over 5 years, the film focuses an economics lens on many of the big picture issues world politics are grappling to deal with. The 40 min documentary looks at whether genuine freedom has been delivered by the democratic system.

We investigate the inefficiencies of the economic system and the impact this has on potential homeowners and small businesses.

The documentary argues that with a simpler tax system, entrepreneurs have a better chance to succeed and the average Australian has a better chance of owning their own home.

More great documentaries

70 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Jules Beckers

    This documentary sketches a very utopian image of the makers point of view. Taxing rent 100% would mean no man would still rent their property to tenants. Why would they? Rental property would be rendered absolutely worthless, evaporating liquidity put in property for many many years. This would create a new real estate crash as seen in 2008. If no one is still interested in investing in such properties there will be a gigantic shortage in rentals pushing more people into homelessness. A vast percentage of people just simply can not save up for a 20% down payment on a small $100.000 home thus renting is for them the only option. And yes landlords make a profit but they also supply a service to the community.

  2. Zake

    Incredible!!! isn’t it. I constantly query why is that the most [conscious] among us, the most [enlighten] among us are also the
    poorer. Or are we just fooling ourselves are were nave and stupid, are we
    poorer and deprive for reason The people depicted here
    in the documentary are all compassionate caring, smart and socially conscious yet, they are all poor. I wish egomaniac Warren Buffet, narcissistic Bill Gates and Larry Elision or the delusional psychopath Jeff Bezos were conscious enough to do something about the plight of these miserable people. Or are we positioned where we are [poor] due to our perpetual naivety Where are the
    wealthy conscious billionaires willing and able to build homes for the workingmen and women.

  3. Realist

    As a left leaning landlord with multiple properties I think they do not fully understand a few points they are advocating.While abolishing negative gearing sounds like a great idea.Negative gearing really only applies as a tax deduction in the first few years of starting up your rental property.After about 5 years you start to make a profit and pay taxes to the government for the next 25 years.The problem is if you decrease supply of available rental properties by making it harder to invest you will drive up rents because of lack of supply.Yes property may not rise in price as much and that's good if you can afford to get a place but those who can't will be left with much higher rents to pay.There is already land tax,stamp duty,capital gains tax,council rates,insurance,water rates,body corp fees,property management fees which are all fixed costs for every landlord and you must pass those costs on to tenants if you do not want to go broke.Advocating a 6% land tax will probably not make it worthwhile to be a landlord unless you can pass the cost on so you again you have a lack of supply of rental properties due to less investing and higher prices for rent.Most things in life are valued by supply and demand factors.If you want something everybody else wants you will have to pay the price to get it.A decent paying secure job for all with a broad based moderate tax system is the best solution to solving poverty.Starting with a modest affordable first property worked out well for me.

  4. leighatkins22

    Wouldn't introducing a land tax just increase the price of rent? Property owners would just pass that cost onto renters, buyers or someone else - God forbid that they should wear the cost of something themselves & just be grateful that they are blessed with owning more than the schmuck next door hey?
    Question: How many people understand that for someone to be rich, everyone else around them must be poor, because rich is a relative state? That's a lot more poor than rich & it's disgusting that such an arrangement is justifiable...

    1. JimB

      Was thinking the same thing.There's an assumption there that speculative vacancies will become less attractive, will be developed into basic housing, and decrease the current demand. Renters would simply move from properties where the owner had passed on the tax. I guess this is fair if housing exceeds demand.

  5. Billy Bamford

    I like paying tax here in the UK. Does a lot of good. Only issue is these right wing govs who misuse it.

  6. Nathan (aka) yhwhzson

    Well I have to say hearing the narrator say that ppl love to kick around the banks. That they are not to blame. WHO IN THE HELL DO PEOPLE BELIEVE DESIGNED THE TAX LAWS?!!!

    I don't want to hear people talk about unfair tax laws and that the government, as if they are an INDEPENDENT ENTITY, are behind these tax laws.

    How does a truly for the people by the people government benefit from these tax laws.

    NO! In fact HELL NO!
    It's the bankers/multinational corporations/ or what ever the hell name they have in vogue today that benefit.

    The multinational corporations are the bankers, and the bankers and the corporations are the government. If the reader or the deluded narrator or maker of this film is confused by this then look at the bios of the government officials.

    This is a piss poor doc. I will admit I learned some things but letting the bankers off of the hook and blaming the TAX CODE???! Sounds Obama like!

    Its curious to me that republicans, democrats, the FED, and every other so called respectable authority agrees that its the DAMN TAX CODE!



    Damn satan!


    1. leighatkins22

      I've no doubt that the tax code designers are not the bankers.
      You seem to forget there Nathan, that when someone like a banker is making money hand over fist, & the god of the day is money, then EVERYONE wants a grab at that money & they'll do it any way they can. To that end, they'll all LOOK like banks, especially if the banks are pressuring them to pass laws that favour banks - they'll be as good as owned by the banks, AND WE ARE ALL OWNED BY THE BANKS NOW AREN'T WE???

  7. Jo McKay

    TTax the richest is resisted only by extreme conservative billionaire s.
    Rich Liberal leaners agree ...they should all be taxed in all the ways
    they make that wealth . Its an issue because they Do NOT pay
    any tax at all...or a very tiny percent based on the rest of us.
    No one can argue this anymore . Yes we need better tax laws
    + changes to all laws which unfairly benefited the most wealthy
    above the rest of us .

  8. JasonBoissonneault

    Those arguing from the standard propaganda standpoint of "punishing successful individuals" vs. "lazy workers looking for handouts" are disingenuous at best. When individuals purposely partake in actions which artificially inflate prices by creating illusions of scarcity, and turning every common asset of humanity into a neo-liberal casino, particularly THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE -- and then shifting the resulting tax burden onto those same workers who make society function -- that is not worthy of a society pretending to based upon rational or enlightenment principles. There is this elitist idea that money is the measuring stick of contribution to society -- which is a notion opposed by virtually any serious investigation -- only existing in thought-terminating clichés promoting irrational and broken systems.

  9. Guest

    This video only introduces land value tax - the comments below arguing against it based on this video are a waste of time. Go away and do some homework.

    1. KAM7

      This video does more than introduce land tax. It is not unbiased by any means. It is a propaganda piece, not a documentary. Raising land taxes will hurt the common man more, especially those who work hard enough to dream of purchasing a property. The couple introduced in the film would suffer more with added land taxes, than merely waiting until the market corrects itself before making a purchase. Speculation and rising and falling home prices do not affect the average family wishing to remain in their home, only the initial purchase. If you don't wish to pay what the market dictates as the going rate, then look elsewhere or wait until you can. The only affect is rising or falling property tax, which is difficult as it is to pay, especially for low-income earners. What this film is really saying, is that the citizens should pay higher 'rents' for property they own, regardless of occupational status. Many of the quotes used in the intervals of this movie are taken out of context and actually support the opposite of what the producers are peddling. Also, many of the examples they use are ridiculous. Yes, the average person pays the same tax on an ice-cream-pop as Donald Trump, but we would continue to do so anyways if this tax was abolished. Basically, according to this film, no tax benefit would go to the nation if a company were making $1B off of the people, and this money could be directly funneled out of the economy unscathed. What a ridiculous notion. This could essentially bankrupt a country. Think about it another way. If land is taxed higher, only those wealthy individuals and corporations could afford the upkeep in many instances. There goes the average person's shot at owning their own. Then, since goods and services would be taxed less or not at all, these wealthy property owners could build housing at a very cheap cost, rent the units, and recoup major profits. These profits would not be taxed, since it is income, or at least taxed less, and rents would remain high or shift higher due to the public's ability to pay more because of untaxed income. The land owner's still win, and moreso according to this film's philosophy. Standards of living would either remain the same or decrease because they are largely dictated by housing costs. In those instances where property owners are less able to make profits, their buildings would be more dilapidated, less renovated, and due to the state of the market, tenants would be forced to accept these conditions. As well, in our technological age, many companies do not even require a tangible office space. Therefore, their profits would be untaxed, and the people lose out. Yes, there are tax-havens and ways to move money offshore to avoid revenue agencies, but this doesn't help that. Raise land taxes enough, and much of the land will be transferred back into government control. Is that what we really want? Land that is so unaffordable that the people can't by a plot, forcing us into small urban centers and shrinking lots, packed in like sardines? Why not merely limit the amount of land one individual or entity can own before being taxed at a higher rate? Or only raise land taxes for wealthy individuals? There will always be loopholes in the system, but we shouldn't point fingers at the one's making more money than us and say "Hey, they're the bad guys! Let's get 'em! How can we design laws to make 'em hurt?!" Most of the time, you'll hurt yourself in the process. This film caters to the unintelligent or uneducated, and makes ridiculous connections that are laughable. It resorts to scare tactics, such as "this is what causes countries to fail," with no real evidence. Market cycles are well known, so perhaps a better endeavor would be to educate laymen on the right times to buy, and what to look out for. There is still much land to be had, and urban sprawl is a positive phenomenon that uses that land for people that would like it. Suburbs are based upon urban sprawl, and they create jobs and build infrastructure. Infrastructure that will be needed in the future, when populations are even larger and people still desire space. I am done ranting, but I am fairly confident that this is either a puff piece by uber-environmentalists who believe that we should use as little land as possible and all live like the Japanese, or multinational corporations that know that they can afford what little increases will actually be made to land taxation, affording them the ability to keep the little man out of sustainable property ownership, save money on labor, and funnel untaxed monies in and out of various economies unquestioned.

  10. templar2019

    The huge flaw in most of the tax-the-rich-so-we-pay-less-tax utopian visions like this one is that we all pay the taxes levied on the rich through higher rents and higher prices of goods. The rich derive their wealth from owning land and industry. “Tax the rich” really means “tax ourselves” because higher taxes to the rich mean higher prices for the goods and services we all buy from them.

    A second severe flaw in the tax-the-rich visions is that somehow we think that the rich just sit there and take the take the tax increases like the poor and middle class do. The rich can afford to implement the type of tax planning and advice that others can’t to avoid tax. For example moving the company base of operations to a tax favored country, state, or province and expensing their lifestyle with before tax dollars through their companies rather be stuck paying for everything with after-tax dollars like all employee wage earners do.

    That’s the bad news. The good news is that owning property and starting a company to enjoy those same benefits I just described is available to all at least in America where I live and I think the same is true in Australia as well.

  11. templar2019

    It is very unlikely that increasing the tax on land with a flat 6% tax would decrease the cost of land by increasing the supply. Rather than building more, it’s far more likely that the price of real estate and rents would just be adjusted upwards to absorb this higher tax cost and once again passed on to the consumer in the form of higher rents and the higher cost of goods. The idea that real estate would be less expensive because it is taxed more is something only a planned economy minded government official would think is credible!

  12. templar2019

    The film claims that the higher tax would somehow reduce rents by increasing the supply of available land by making the carrying cost of vacant land higher. This is incorrect because the cost of land is not the primary cost of development, building improvements on the land is far more expensive. So even a 6% increase would not influence building to a very great degree.

    The premise that if all land was taxed at a flat 6% then more land would be developed rather than held for speculation would be true to a small degree. However, not to a large enough degree that so much more land would be made available that overall prices would dramatically fall for all.

  13. templar2019

    TThe premise that exchanging one large property tax in exchange for several smaller payroll, sales, and other taxes would free up more money for the workers is false.

    Workers would merely exchange higher rents for less taxes and be at the same point as before. A smaller portion of the hourly wage would be called “tax” but a larger portion in the same wage would be called “rent” the net to the workers hourly pay would be zero.

  14. B B

    " The owner does not work and the value rises, even when he is asleep. " So am I to understand that any investment that grows while I sleep is unfair? Interest on the money in my bank account, my stocks, my vending machine business? How about the convenience store that I own and is open 24 hours ?

    The value of my stocks rise because the community is growing and there are more people buying the products that my company sells. And my convenience store makes money when these new residents buy products. So using the logic that " land values belong to the community as they created them", should I be sharing my stock and store profits with the community ?

    What about my employee at the convenience store who got a raise because we sold more products. Should he share his increased earnings with the community that created them ?

    What if I buy a rental unit at the peak of the bubble and sell it at a loss ? If the community is entitled to share in the gain, will the community compensate me for my loss?

    1. djrm.80

      you are interpreting the doc how its good four your mind..and more you are so capitalist driven that you think the comunity will allways need you but you never will need the comunity incredible let me guess you are american...becouse people that say "the peak of the bubble " and think that an bubble its something normal and not criminal not pre arranjed must be american (i dont have nothing against americans,just some ways of american thout) i have so so nothing against americans that i say i would cout an american head has much as others....

    2. templar2019

      I agree with you B B - the person who is smart enough, industrious enough, talented enough, and yes a bit lucky enough to have earned the money should not be required to share the profits with the collective in the form of a tax like this film suggests.

      The concept that wealthy individuals owe the majority of their success to the community is true to a very small degree. True enough so people can say it with a straight face, and true enough to give it some currency in thought - like all half-truths. But not so true as to attach the huge obligation of guilt and taxes that most of the proponents of the community-gave-you-your-success crowd is seeking to impose on successful individuals.

    3. Asynca Feher

      It's not about guilt at all. Whether you will accept it or not, you are LUCKY to have had the opportunity to make wealth. Poor people can be extremely industrious, but without the resources to fully promote their entrepreneurial spirit, they will go nowhere with their ideas.

      The very rich should not have guilt, but rather a generosity of spirit that recognizes that two people can work just as hard and be just as smart, but if one person is born into a middle class or rich family and one is not, they are not on equal playing fields. It's about wanting to contribute to the community, about wanting to give hope and opportunity to those who are worst off that should be behind happily paying taxes or happily donating to charities.

      I happily pay my taxes and donate knowing that someone poorer than me is better off as a result. It is my great privilege to have the facility to be able to help other people not as lucky as myself.

      We are all part of a wider community, you're kidding yourself if you think you're a solo island who can escape the impact of ignoring the poor. Did you study the French revolution?

    4. JimB

      You've completely missed the point. Yes, income is taxed (interest, stocks, labour), but the point is that land assets are not. Your last point is an example of a negative asset, the loss of which is taken from income leading to reduced personal taxation. So yes, the community does compensate you for your loss.

  15. commenturion

    And if property developers build too many luxury apartments during a boom, why wouldn't they switch to building cheap housing during a bust?

  16. commenturion

    why don't these documentary producers structure their argument better, draw cause-effect diagrams, etc.? do I need to do all the thinking myself? this only confuses the public more and leads to misdirected blaming.

    they say "real estate speculators leave some of their land unused in order to create scarcity and thus increase prices" (5:00), but fail to explain that this only happens in cartel situations. In a free market, I would leave the task of "creating scarcity" to other speculators and fully utilize my land for extra profit. I do understand the brilliant "perceived scarcity"-tactic though.

    around 8:00 they jump to "overproduction of luxury apartments" and "low cost of keeping a house empty" as causing high vacancy rates, too high prices, and too little supply of cheaper houses. In both cases it seems the "bad guys" are not feeling the pain, because they don't mention "opportunity costs" (the rent you could have received, or the sports car you could have bought in stead of the luxury apartment).

  17. maskdalili

    if i am old and cannot work any more. with what i have i will pay for food and what i need with in my means. if you tax my home there is no scape when i can not pay the tax. i will be home less. but on sales tax system i can by only berad and have a home to go to. and the rich and drug deales will pay taxes on their algator shoes and expensive cars ect..

  18. Ronnie Raharjo

    If land ownership is taxed, what will happen to the farmers? And by extension, what will happen to food security when farming become such an unprofitable investment and way of life? Additionally, while Hong Kong and a number of other Asian countries does have property taxes and duties, it is nowhere near what is advocated by this video. In Hong Kong, tax on property rental is 15% while taxes on sales of property is between US$13 to 4.25% (maximum) of the sales value. Other Asian countries have lower tax rates for both categories while still generally maintaining very low taxes (by Western standards) on wages and businesses.

    1. Derek Ross

      They will pay far less for their LVT than they did for income tax, VAT, etc. and come out way ahead. Also they won't have to pay inheritance tax or death duties and so will be able to pass their farms on to their children far more easily. LVT is a big win for farmers, particularly small farmers. And doubly so for tenant farmers.

  19. John Waterways

    First many have to understand where the value in land comes from?

    It came because of community activity - private and public. Economic growth soaks into the land and crystallizes as land values. The value never came from the sky. The value in the land is common wealth. It belongs to the community, as they created it.

    Currently this common wealth is appropriated for private gain. Land Valuation Taxation reclaim this commonly created wealth to pay for common community services which we all benefit from. So, socially created wealth is socialized, for social use.

    With LVT as the Single Tax, private wealth is not socialized. Private wealth stays private. Income Tax socializes private wealth.

    This way productive work is not penalized and socially created wealth is RECLAIMED to pay for community services.

    A spin off is that land speculation is kept in check and land prices, and hence house prices, kept low. Enterprise is encourage not land speculation. All win, win.

  20. Leslie

    People, Agenda 21, it is here, it is the most un American plan you can imagine, no land ownership for individuals & when they come evict you, they aren't compensating like eminent domain, They have been working their way around the rural areas here in CA for a few years when nobody knew what was going on, they have been successfully getting people to walk away from their homes by way of code violations, when you comply they find more.
    They have been really hard after land that has water rights. Watch out for the Nuisance abatement team, they will be knocking on your door if this isn't stopped and I warn you, they bring deputies along and if you aren't prepared, they do a thorough search of your property in and out. You can refuse but they aren't informing people of this, they give people the impression it's mandatory, it's up to you to know your rights!

    Agenda 21 documentation is huge but it can be found on the UN website, and at your local planning dept. which is also the one who holds local meetings where people need to attend and fight this thing. Once the ball really starts rolling and all the neighborhood is talking, it will be too late.
    Worst part is this is actually the final faze of a plan of doom they have been busy at for quite some time. I suggest YouTube to learn about it, it will take you years to get through the UN documentation!

    If you find this comment useful, please like it Agenda 21 needs everyone's immediate attention!

  21. Liebewitz

    Being almost resistant to the endless 2008 debacle tales; this refreshingly paced narrated documentary (Rachel Meagher) -gave me an insight into the debacle from another side, quite literally-the hemisphere down under.
    No one escaped the fall out, evidently,-except for the usually suspects.

    Buffalo Springfield (well known economists-???) once said albeit, in another context...
    'There's something happening here
    What it is ain't exactly clear'

    Here, the problem and solution is clear;

    Get those *******politicians (stupid or greedily bent) to put a
    LAND TAX -in place!

    Maybe too late for some of us, to see........but

  22. bubascary

    OMG this doc is a load of kaka, we currently have land tax in Australia and it is based on the value of your properties other than your current residence. The doc states that it "could" eliminate other taxes like income and payroll tax. You are naive if you think that the government will honour that promise. The introduction of the GST was to eliminate other taxes, the only one that it did, was the sales tax, income tax or payg is here to stay as it is the most steady source of revenue, most of the other taxes are at the mercy of the economy. I know the sales of property declined as a result of the land tax. The doc stated that the income tax of the public was being used to increase the speculators profit because the negative gearing was being subsidized, this doesn't mean that they pay no tax, it means the tax they are paying is adjusted to the correct amount. I seriously could go on and on but I am sure I have bored you half to death.

    1. John Waterways

      You are obviously a defeatist. The Single Tax (LVT) is totally possible and easy to collect and land cannot be taken off-shore.

      The got it right when they said the economy (the western world) is a land economy, not based ion enterprise.

      - Egypt's Old Kingdom, the first great civilization on earth, destroyed by the land tax exemption for temple lands that over the centuries drove all the good land into the hands of the priests, starving the government of revenue needed for defense and necessitating destructive taxes on economic activity.

      - Rome, the greatest empire of ancient times, destroyed by the land tax exemption for the noble senatorial families that over the centuries drove all the good land into their hands, starving the government of revenue needed for defense against barbarian hordes, and necessitating destructive taxes on economic activity, currency debasement, and finally economic and military collapse.

      - Venice, flower of the Renaissance, destroyed by abandonment of the LVT that had created it out of a mud flat.

      - France's ancien regime, greatest European economic power of the 17th C, de-industrialized and impoverished in the 18th C by Colbert's tax on capital; then on the brink of being made free, just and prosperous by Turgot's policies of laissez faire and LVT, as in Limoges, a conspiracy of rich landowners and monopolists brings Turgot down, and France lurches inexorably toward economic collapse, revolution, and the Terror.

      - England's income tax of the 19th C, which fell mostly on rent income from land, makes Britain the world's premier industrial and economic power; turning that land tax into a tax on wages in the 20th C makes Britain the "poor man of Europe."

      - Japan's Meiji-era LVT turns a poverty-stricken feudal backwater into a world economic, industrial and military power in a single generation; reducing LVT over the following decades leads to wealth inequality, fascism, and military expansionism that ends in Japan's utter destruction.

      - Taiwan, a backwater full of uneducated people growing rice and within 60 years is a global technological power by implementing LVT.


    2. bubascary

      Hi John

      You may call me a defeatist if you wish, but it is VERY obvious to me that you are credulous!!

      You must have skipped over the part where I am telling you I am from Australia NSW and we do have Land Tax and the land is going off shore!

      I am assuming you are from the us, so, Australia in 2000 got the GST against majority of the publics wishes. It was to eliminate the "other taxes". It didn't, what it did become was an additional tax. I am not guessing what will happen if land tax was increased with a promise to eliminate other taxes, I am basing this on past behaviour!

      Egypt - The decline was due to the Nile drying, no black earth from flooding.

      Rome - Slow declined over 4 centuries, due to many things not just economics.

      Taiwan - Wow I am glad I checked this one, I will quote somethin I read "Depite the introduction of a property tax and other anti-speculative measures early this year to cool the residential property market house prices in Taiwan continue to surge".

      I believe if we are to change our taxation system we need a true reform not just a slap happy system some people agree with.

    3. John Waterways

      HI bubascary,

      Gullible I am clearly not. I advise you to understand the my post on where and how land values come from. Without that you will be always be flapping. ;) Land values belongs to the community as they created them. LVT merely "reclaims" what is the communities. LVT is "not" a tax. Private landowners who extract this wealth are in effect stealing, although our unjust laws say they are not. In effect the state is stealing from the people when it imposes production and transaction taxes such as Income and Sales taxes. But our unjust laws say they are not. We currently do things 180 degrees the wrong way around.

      What nature made: land and its resources, the electromagnetic spectrum, water, air, etc, is COMMONWEALTH. Men never made it. What a man creates a man keeps as it is his labours that created it.

      Taiwan's property prices are rising because of the surge in the economy which was based on taxing land. Look at Taiwan in 1946. The based it on the success of LVT in the German Chinese colony of Kiao Chan, as Sun Yat Sen had direct experience in the colony. Kiao Chan implemented the Single Tax. The success was noted in Germany who were to implement it, as was Winston Churchill in the UK to a lesser extent but stopped by the vested interests of the House of (land)Lords, but WW1 and resulting depression came along and scuppered the lot.

      Denmark nationally adopted LVT in the late 1950s, although not the Single Tax. From 1957 to 1960, the following improvements took place:

      1. The big deficit on her balance of payments was turned into a surplus.

      2. Denmark's total debts abroad amounting to 1,600 million kr. were reduced to one quarter of this, about 400 million kr.

      3. The rate of interest, and hence mortgage levels dropped.

      4. Unemployment was soon replaced by almost full employment, together with considerable increases in production and wages.

      5. Inflation was brought to a standstill. All wage increases were real wage increases, the highest ever in Denmark.

      6. No other taxes were levied during this period. except one, (which proved damaging.)

      7. The time was free of strikes. Industrial production went up 32%,

      8. investment rose 135%

      9. Savings increased immensely, as once again it became profitable to accumulate savings.

      After three years in power, Denmark had no foreign debt, no inflation and an unemployment level of 1%, considered full employment.

      Only about 7.5% of Auss's revenues comes from taxing land. Get to 100% and the country will need more people and the empty continent will fill up.

      It is well known that not taxing income created enterprise based economies and empires. And that monopolization of land and taxing production destroyed them.

  23. Travis Sichel

    Cheaper too rent for life I think.
    Maybe I could buy and sell the house after it doubles in value.
    If there will be a buyer dumb enough to buy something way over its actual value. Or maybe that is me now >_<...

    They been saying its a good time to buy, house prices are going down. Though last year, they said its a good time to buy, house prices are going up. Whoever they are, I seriously hate them =_=...

  24. john Palermo

    A hypothetical thought scenario: I would like to ride my efficient all terrain scooter to grandmas house and according to both natural law and my country's constitution i can do so without interference of government however as soon as i leave my sovereign parcel (that's another fantasy all together) i encounter a road placed there by a government so with no other option to get around it i must use it at least in part however now a enforcer of government taxation and regulation detains me and requires i have a government note allowing me to operate my private means of conveyance upon the public works project or road that i could not avoid and also a note that a private firm has bonded me against harm and damage resulting from my actions while using my private means of conveyance upon the unavoidable "public" ways. i reason with this armed individual however no expression of my rights satisfies his intellect and i am fined and or detained for offending some artificial legal statute i never had opportunity to vote on or be cognizant of as it is not natural nor constitutional law which is my duty as a human being and citizen to understand.(and this detention factor really does go whatever way they feel like in reality with no standard)
    My question is then WTF! are we actually free as this very scenario depicts reality and the very freedoms we treasure are the very freedoms in question here? I know this is a long winded post and a bit out of place but it is base to the issue if we wish to be honest with ourselves so reply's would be appreciated and perhaps could open a more vital discussion rather than just hypothetical banter how we should adapt to what seems to be a unjust tax to begin with.

    1. azanjac

      You are right, so many of our freedoms are taken away. We are all bound by ridiculous laws and trivialities. No real logic behind it. Greed, and power enforced by ignorance, and it is ignorance alone that upholds it.

      A tax law is makeup, like a bandaid on a broken spine.

  25. KsDevil

    I must be missing something. In Kansas, we have property tax and property is revalued every year. I own property in Wisconsin and every year I pay taxes on it and receive a valuation on it every year.
    I thought this was the norm everywhere.
    I am wondering if this documentary is targeting only Australia and California land/property tax laws.

  26. JasonPhotographer

    I can see where you’re coming from Steve, and I am all in favour of landowning businesses and corporations being made to pay a tax based on the value of their land. Furthermore, I imagine most people would agree that reckless mortgage lending was the root cause of the property bubble.
    When I took the mortgage out on my small two bedroom flat back in the early 1990’s, right after the last property crash, the mortgage companies wanted to know every little detail of my earnings (which were in the ballpark of the national average wage as I recall) and, if approved, I would only be eligible for a mortgage of no more than two and a half times my annual income, in addition to which, because I was self employed, I had to come up with a 10% deposit, and even then it was quite a struggle finding a building society that would give me that mortgage. However, in the course of the following 10 years the value of the flat I’d bought almost quadrupled, yet the same could not be said of my earnings, which barely saw a 20% rise (in fact in these sorry times I am now scarcely earning what I did in 1993). Now if we consider the value of my flat at its peak in about 2005, a first time buyer would have had to be earning well over 3 times my annual income to get a mortgage on that property if they had applied in person to a major bank or building society. So bearing in mind that we didn’t see any corporate lawyers, consultant surgeons or stock brokers moving into our block of 1940’s Jerry built hovels, it’s pretty safe to assume that most first time mortgages around that time had been obtained fraudulently to some degree, and the mortgage lenders must have suspected that this was going on, but they quite happily turned a blind eye, safe in the knowledge that their arses were covered. So yes, tighter controls on the mortgage lending industry might have helped to prevent many people from getting in over their heads during the boom years, and the rise in house prices would have been less pronounced, but the banks are now back to being very careful about whom they give mortgages to (in fact it’s considerably harder to get a first time mortgage now than it was in 1993), yet we haven’t seen property values dropping as far as we might have expected, despite the severity of the economic crisis. The reason for this goes back to what happened in the early 1990’s after the last property bubble burst, when prices fell dramatically, causing widespread negative equity and a new generation of speculators (many of them estate agents and other professionals in the property business) swooped on the subsequent auctions, making their fortunes just as quickly as others were losing theirs.
    So perhaps what we’ve been failing to take into account is the people who can afford to buy first time homes at the moment are those who already own property and they are out there busily aping their predecessors from the 90’s and increasing portfolios that can be rented out to a whole generation of people who can’t hope to qualify for a mortgage. The conditions are almost perfect for them, as long as house prices stay too high for first time buyers, then they have a captive rental market, and the banks are always happy to loan money to those who have plenty of collateral.
    As regards Zatarra’s comments about slavery to a mortgage (aside from the obvious fact that you do end up with something to show for it if you pay your mortgage off, even if it’s just a paltry little place like mine), I’d say that slavery to a landlord is a hundred times worse as it really is slavery, and the only way to break this vicious cycle is to move taxation away from people’s productivity, income and consumption and redirect it as a straight forward tax that is fairly proportioned to land value, as that will hit the mean spirited profiteers who seek to monopolise land right where it hurts most. It won’t drive the poor off the land, it will give the land back to them. As for complaining about not getting anything in return for your land tax as you call it, has your property not increased in value? Are you unsatisfied with your local area? I have to pay crippling business rates and haven’t a clue what I get in return for having my productivity unduly hampered. There are no road repairs, street lighting, or rubbish collection where I rent the studio I work from, just ever increasing demands for payment from a local authority who lost their shirts investing unwisely in Icelandic banks and who have since adopted an unspeakable policy of putting the screw on all the hard pressed small businesses that are struggling to stay afloat under their jurisdiction (it’s really just a microcosm of what’s happened with our income tax being used to bail out the poorly managed banks that went tits up). But my home is a different matter, I like the area (it has a lot going for it), the local school is great, my kids are happy and I’ve enjoyed a very noticeable increase in the value of my property, why wouldn’t I be happy to pay something back for that?
    And finally Waldo, I suspect you wouldn’t have anything to worry about under a land value tax system. Would I be right in assuming that 60 acres in a quiet rural area would be worth somewhat less than an apartment in midtown Manhattan? A land value tax would be just that, as they say the key to it is location, location, location. Furthermore, when I spoke of retired people clinging on to larger family homes, it was on the proviso that their kids had flown the nest. If you’re back caring for your father, then your family home is being used by both of you. Also when people want to leave something to their children, under the tax system I am proposing there wouldn’t be any inheritance tax, so the incentive would be there to cash in the capital gains locked up in the larger house, move into a smaller place more suited to your retirement and give your kids the remainder so they can put a down payment on their own first homes. Naturally some people will stay for sentimental reasons, and I am not knocking that, but it should come at a price as the land is not being used as efficiently or fairly as it could be, so it’s really a matter of personal choice.
    Well that’s a bit more than my two penny’s worth tonight, I am off to bed. If anyone’s actually bothered to read this far into my post at this ungodly hour, jolly well done :-)

    1. wald0

      Yes you are quite right, much less than an apartment in Manhattan. It just seems odd for me to think we could really get enough revenue only taxing land, especially if taxes are to remain low on non-commercial family plots. It would seem in order for them to get what they presently do out of our income and so forth they would have to raise land taxes considerably across the board. Really though I simply don't know. I would have to know just how high land taxes would have to be for the middle class in order to recover enough revenue to feed the beast. I mean taxes on home plots up to say forty acres or so. If they could stay low enough as to not wreck retirement or hurt middle class families. See I understand that the equity in your home goes up as the land value does but, that’s not money in pocket and you have to take a mortgage or sell to lay hands on it. People are living check to check, week to week, hand to mouth around here just now. They don't have means to build investments right now; right now they need the cash to pay the bills- land taxes included.
      Mortgages have become difficult to secure, well at least compared to how easily it was when the bubble was in full bloom. That is a good thing in that the last thing we need is to start inflating another bubble, which is already happening I suppose. The truth is we are f*ckd. Excuse my French but, really we are. Our system of government, our economy, even our society is falling to pieces. I don't think any one thing could be blamed, other than say greed maybe. Both political parties work for the same folks and handle all the important key issues the exact same way, whatever way is in corporate interest. They have had such a strangle hold on this country for so long, in fact it stretches all the way back to the very beginning of American history, literally. The result is that they have managed to entrench their interests so deeply as to penetrate into the very fabric of our nation. The work will be unweaving this vast tapestry they used to mask the stigma of greed and corruption in such a way as to not destroy the social compact. Right now we are failing miserably; they have us divided into liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, rich and poor, right down to atheist and those that believe. They use emotional social issues like abortion or gay marriage to keep us fighting amongst ourselves because they know if we ever remember, if ever it should dawn on too many of us at one time that we are still "we the people"- they would be finished and they know it. I don't think the divide between what most of us want is really that wide, we have just been pushed to the far extreme edges of the debate by these polarizing characters like Rush Limbaugh or Al Sharpton. If communities would come together amongst themselves and leave all these carrier politicians and social activists behind to argue their philosophical principles and political extremes, we could get something done. Anyway- I'll climb off my soap box now and go back to playing with my atoms and molecules. Sorry for the long winded reply.

    2. john Palermo

      "Tactical" lending as it produced the very results planned to further enrich the tacticians behind it.If society allows the next best guess is a "green" bubble is now being placed at the starting line. Bubbles bubbles bubbles,, they require the attention and study. This crap dates back hundreds of years in many different forms but the game is no different. While us common folk run around as if the bursts are some universally shared loss for all forgetting wealth only transfers we go on tossing data back and forth off one another trying to make sense of whats happened and the next one is being tactfully created in the confusion and always appears as the answer to the last. It's a way of further taking advantage of human nature and unfortunately it actually looks as though the common distribution of wealth which has not changed since inception of our asset based society no longer satisfies those who play from the top.

  27. Sandra Hannah

    SHAME on the POLITICIANS for ALLOWED such SCAM to continue.

  28. wald0

    Whoops, I forgot to even mention the doc in my post, sorry everyone. The doc is wonderful, very well done and very interesting. It gets into some rather subtle and far reaching proposals that went a little over my head as a chemist but, it is definitely worth watching even if you do not usually care for docs about economic issues. I was not aware we had shifted taxes in this manner nor was I aware of the effects of that shift. This doc explained the effects more than anything else but, it also spent a lot of time on what benefits we could reap from shifting the tax code back to property and off of income and payroll. I know it sounds like a boring bunch of numbers and tax code blah blah blah- but watch it and you will be surprised. Now I am off to Keen Talks, if you haven't checked it out you don't know what your missing- it rox!!

  29. Steven Young

    I think I would be more of an advocate of the corporate and business land tax while the residence tax would remain low. That is to say, a business would be required to pay tax on land it owned, as well as any kind of landlord or store, while folks who live on their own property would be free of that same tax.

    Another thing that I would like to point out is that I believe that what is affordable is partly to be considered as a major influence over property value. I lived in Korea, and this is what I learned about loans: in order to take out a loan, you must have 50% of the value in the bank. That means for a $500,000 house, you need $250,000 to put down. Now, that might sound bad, but in reality it's the opposite. People sell things for what they can get. So if the average person has $50,000 in their bank account, then the cost of the property needs to sell for $100,000. In Canada, as it was a few years ago, you had to pay %5. So you only needed $25,000 for that 500k property. For a 100k property, only 5k would be required. Anyone and everyone with any kind of income could afford that. So, the number of buyers competing for the same property is dramatically increased, increasing the cost of the property. Low interest rates are another indirect way to increase the cost of a property. If the interest rate is 20% on a property of 500k, then that's 100k per year that has to be met by the lendee. That's a lot of money. Compare that to 3-4%, which means it's 15k, which anyone with a reasonable income can afford. People pay what they can afford. If they can't afford it, then the value will come down.

    Of course, as the premise of the video states, if the property can sit without any cost to the owner, then there's no reason for them to produce anything out of it.

    In any case, my 2cents.

  30. GodmanEnki

    BTW, THAT "property was in an Arkansas-State National Park!" Where there are signs all over stating "Bill Clinton lived here!"

  31. GodmanEnki

    Here, here, John!

    1. john Palermo

      I ascertain you were referring to my post and the response is very much appreciated however please excuse me if I am mistaken. I would like to comment that it is very refreshing to read what you posted about the "Democracy" issue as this is such a vital clue to the very roots of where power has been stolen from we the "people". I often reference this and include all the usual core empirical facts to back it however as I am sure you also have found no measure of truth can seen to remove the blinders from those who are still caught up in the "adjusted" reality. In a metaphorical sense these posts we leave are like sitting in a room full of people debating back and forth all around while raising a hand and trying to be heard as you shout out the answer to the yet the answer is not at all why they are making the noise, noise for the sake of noise almost as a shield to truth penetrating. It's a bitch but there are more out there every day who can now see clear though the smoke screens and all are actually capable so don't give up and most of all don't let it get you down. Words I recommend better than I practice, lol..

  32. GodmanEnki

    Doesn't ANYONE KNOW our "founding Fathers" ALL agreed that a "Democracy" is THE WORST form of government there is! Yet all my 62 years I believed we were a "Democracy." Thomas Jefferson said, "Democracy is the WORST for of government there is." So did the Freemason George Washington." We NEED to STOP "electing" (appointing) Generals and Military people to Congress AND to the White House ESPECIALLY!

  33. LnatalieC

    This might be an ignorant question... but wouldn't increased land taxes punish people whose homes happen to be in an area which is becoming increasingly valuable, thus increasing their land tax perhaps beyond their means? They may be able to sell their home for a profit, but it may be a small consolation when they never wanted to sell their home in the first place.

    1. JasonPhotographer

      I am glad you made that point, as that was one of the initial criticisms I had for the land value tax. If the tax system was hurriedly amended overnight, then yes that would hit people like that unduly hard, but if it was brought in with some consideration over time, then they'd have fair warning and the land value would have pre-adjusted with the knowledge of what was coming, thereby cushioning the shock. What you probably would see would be a much fairer alocation of land value for first and foremost businesses and inevitably residential premises. This would effectively move against the unecessary concentration of land value and the associated problem of urban sprawl. As I previously said, the reason for hanging onto a family home after the kids have flown the nest is ultimately a sentimental one, and we do have to weigh that up against the needs of young families who need a home too. The question you should ask yourself is one of what kind of legacy you want to leave your children, a piecemeal share of a home your never really owned yourself, or a stable economy and level playing field where they get a fair chance to shine in their own right.

    2. LnatalieC

      But what if it's just a modest home which becomes increasingly expensive even if gradually, while the income of the family living there does not increase? To be honest I ask because I know people who had to sell their home due to increasing land taxes. It was not an extravagant home and their children still lived with them. They lived in a small town which became an increasingly popular tourist destination, not on the fringes of an expanding city. ... But I guess some people might just have to pay for the greater good?

    3. JasonPhotographer

      I do know what you mean, as I live on the outskirts of the largest city in Europe, but the question is why is it so expensive there? If it's for business reasons, then there's nothing to worry about, as they'll be the first to relocate at the insistance of their accountants. So what reason remains? Is it purely aesthetic? Well there's no accounting for that, as people will always value a scenic view or proximity to a social whirl of some sort, but that will in turn add value to the property in question, so you're benefitting in land value and you always have to ask yourself: What's it worth to you? Do you stay or do you cash in and go? If you've had fair warning, no one's twisting your arm. That's got to be the bottom line.

    4. wald0

      I would say there could definitely be more than sentimental reasons to hang on to that family home. Namely that it can be inherited by those same children that have gone off to make their way in the world. I left home at a very early age to do just that and have now moved back in with my parents in order to take care of my dad, who is in his eighties now and not in the best of health to say the least. I took a job here and plan to inherit this home and continue to live here. I always wanted to return here and teach chemistry. I am not currently teaching but, I am an assistant and manage the lab for the local community college. We live on sixty acres that we carved out of pure wilderness with our bare hands, as cliché as that may sound. I live in a very rural area were everyone lives on large amounts of land, 20 acres is a small plot. Not to mention that at least seventy percent or more of these people are at least sixty five and retired, living on pensions and social security. How would this affect this particular life style? Most of this land is undeveloped and that which is developed is mainly used for personal purposes that bring no income.
      I ask because you seem to have some sort of back ground in economics, or at least understand this particular system very well. As a chemist it goes way past my knowledge of economics to try and evaluate something this subtle and far reaching. I will say this though; there are places in this country where it has become tradition to pass on large plots of land to your children. This was at one time a very important agricultural area. Montana has a very similar tradition and back ground if that helps you. These people and there off spring will fight this tooth and nail if it makes the ability to live on large open plots of land without necessarily having to develop that land for commercial use of any kind impossible. Now I may disagree with that rancher/farmer style mentality, I am certainly no cowboy I am a chemist. It also appears you disagree with that sense of entitlement but, they still exist and have significant power. What I am asking is if you can formulate an argument to present to people of this ilk, what do we say to them to get them on board with something like this and how will it affect their life in the first place? Thanks, I really enjoyed your posts.

    5. john Palermo

      My best wishes for the continuance of the family home remaining so as it rightfully should in a proper and just society.

    6. alans

      Someone here already suggested that land tax should be proportional to land value. That means that with the increasing land value the land tax would not increase beyond the peoples ability to pay it. I think that translates to land being valued less for profit, more for what it is intended for, for providing a place to live for everyone. I guess that means that if you aren't using the land, then there is no point in you owning it. Henry George believed that land belongs equally to all, the earth is our home, and that no one has the right to deprive any human being of a place to live through profit, speculation or any other means.

  34. JasonPhotographer

    I am glad to see a few comments have sprung up while I’ve been away at work, and I do feel encouraged to hopefully carry the debate a little further…

    So firstly in response to Momus12, I have to say that was initially my reaction too, but on reflection I don’t think we ever really own our own land under any system, in the sense that we can dare to dream of being master of our little plot and exempt from taxation by a greater authority. I’ve paid the mortgage off on the flat I live in with my family, and my elderly mother is in a similar position with the house my father spent his working life paying for, but we both still shell out for council tax, and sundry other impositions on consumption (be it fuel, food and just about everything else the taxman has decided to target). In addition to this, I also pay business rates and income tax, both of which serve to render any effort I make in this flagging economic climate even less effective. The real problem with taxing people’s productivity being the inherent deadweight loss (the “can I really be arsed to get out of bed” factor), and the only form of taxation that doesn’t fall foul of this is a straight forward tax on land value.
    To reach retirement age, if we’re honest with ourselves, is a bit of a pipe dream for most of us in our forties in this day and age, the rotten truth being we’ll probably die in harness and never experience retirement in the sense that the previous generation did. However, I don’t think anyone credible would propose an overnight revolution where some poor sod, who’s slaved their whole life away under the current tax system to satisfy the terms of their mortgage agreement, suddenly finds themselves slammed with a crippling tax on their four square walls. I get the impression that most serious proponents of the land value tax would be in favour of a gradual glide towards this end involving a careful amalgamation of current taxes, in order to avoid any disastrous shock to the system.
    Under such conditions, and bearing in mind the significant capital gains involved, the only real reason for hanging onto a larger family home after the kids have flown the nest is pretty much a sentimental one, and can we really afford such sentimental indulgence when the next generation are doomed to raise their children in rented accommodation? I think that a fair question.

    In response to AlmostAlwaysAwake (I do rather like the name by the way as I don’t sleep a whole lot myself these days), I am always interested in exploring new theories, and am a keen advocate of dialectic over sophism in any debate, so please do feel free to post a link and expand on this as I am quite intrigued as to how workable such a concept would be. However, given the information currently at my disposal, I do propose that in this instance we might have somewhat lost sight of the wood amongst the trees and the answer is for once actually that simple. After all, in this day and age it’s really a touch hard to swallow that an economic theory founded over a century ago could yield results in the modern world.

    In response to Azilda, I am not sure I quite follow the tenet of your assertion there, as I really can’t think of a reason why this scheme wouldn’t work in any society, no matter how small, entirely on its own without the US leading the way. In fact, speaking as a UK citizen, the less other large economic powers embrace the idea, the more we would prosper in terms of economic efficiency, not that I am advocating such a position, nor am I knocking the US (I lived there for a few years and really do have a great liking for Americans as it goes), as I’d rather see the whole world embracing this idea and singing in perfect harmony… one can but dream :-)
    In response to rjlp, well I am lead to believe Hong Kong only raised 30% of their tax revenue on land value tax, so perhaps they should have gone further? Besides which, I’d be honestly very interested to see how well they’re fairing compared to the UK and US economies right now, as that might be a pretty good indication. As regards Canada, I wasn’t at all aware of the situation there, but would really appreciate some clear statistics on that, as I concede that I could very well be jumping to conclusions and maybe my view has become clouded with a desperate desire for simplicity and the solution is after all heavily laden with complex social engineering, but we could also try and look on the bright side :-)

    In response to John Palermo… I do sympathise, but sociopaths are just a beastly fact of life. I’ve worked for EIC’s who had the management skills of Joe Stalin and somehow survived their wretched purges, and some companies do fall foul of it to their detriment, but perhaps a simplification of the tax system would be a major step forward in this respect, as just imagine how many loopholes could be closed in terms of tax avoidance with a straight forward land value tax. All those corporate tax specialists and lawyers with nowhere to ply their insidious trade. What’s the worst that could happen?

    Oh well, that’s my two penny’s worth.

    I shall look forward to your considered replies :-)

  35. Alexander Olsson

    This is a really good realistic way to move towards a better world. Just think about all the many problems that would be solved this way...This should be seen by all...

  36. john Palermo

    Solutions to the worlds suffering masses abound however they will never get by those who are the root of all these issues so why do we allow ourselves to become so caught up in these useless expenditures of our valuable time,emotion, and energy? Only one base reality must be realized and confronted, the corrupt thieves of our otherwise naturally benevolent society must be removed. We the people do not willfully start wars to kill one another just as we do not take from the mouths of others however we can not seem to face the reality that our society is infected with those who do not share our natural empathy towards one another. This very empathy is both the tool they use against us and the blinders we can not seem to remove in order to strike out against them and remove them like the cancer they are. Science has shown on average 1% of persons are sociopaths, is there any mystery as to where these people gather in society! Looking to our elected leaders, wealth foundations, and faith based cults is no more a solution than the fly asking the spider for help getting out of the web.
    We are the 99% and something must be done before we allow this 1% to destroy all........

  37. rljp

    Hong Kong still ended up with bubbles in housing and condo's. Nigeria's problem have to do with the fools running the place. I think land tax is a good idea but in some countries such as Canada people are paying high land tax and high income tax and high sales tax etc and still running deficits and still in many major centers and desirable places to live are unaffordable as far as buying a house goes. I think any gains on a house being bought and sold within lets say two years needs to be sky high as far as taxing said gains. And obviously include exemptions for people who have to sell based on moving for work etc. Find ways to kill the speculation but you cannot get rid of income tax and rely on land based tax as you cannot pay for it all such as in canada etc. And its not hard to compute. How many houses exist on land. whats the actual budget of the government. What would the tax need to be to cover it all? I think the tax on your land for which your house sits would give you a heart attack. But I dont know what that number is for Australia but seems like a simple thing to compute for the sake of a documentary. I have no idea why they tossed Nigeria in there. The place is a disaster. So much oil wealth going to a few...and of course the military to protect the few. Land tax ain't going to help them. It all sounds nice but when one thinks about it what they are proposing doesn't add up or at least they did not sell it to me. too many holes with a simplistic system that doesn't add up. Just tax land and lower income tax and eliminate sales tax with economies running deficits of 4% GDP. Uh ok???

    1. John Waterways

      All studies have proven that using only the Single Tax, LVT, all government revenues is collected and the average person pays less tax overall. Land and house prices stabilize and boom & bust is eliminated. Governments will need less revenue as enterprise is encouraged reducing the Welfare bill.

      LAND SPECULATION was the root cause of the 1929 & 2008 crashes. Debt after debt was poured into LAND because gains were tax free.

      LVT, as the Sinle Tax, stops all that.

    2. bubascary

      Sorry John I have to disagree with you again. Crash in 2008 was due to the deregulation of banks. Greed is usually the cause!

      We have taxes of gains, it's the capital gains tax.

    3. John Waterways

      bubascary, you are looking at the surface. Look at the root cause underneath.

      When there is economic growth all history tells us that surplus money is poured into property (land). Land prices always rise all "facts" prove that. The graphs are all there. Debt after debt was poured into tax free, and accumulating in value, land. A real big earner so they all naturally went for it. The land market overheated. The root cause was speculation in LAND.

      It is best you do some root cause analysis of why.

      1. It was not banks at all - companies go for the greater gains, which is natural

      2. Speculation in LAND caused the crash.

      Why were speculators pouring debt after debt into land? Because it is tax free on its gains - esentially a welfare giveaway to landowners, paid for by the poor landless taxpayers. The owner does not work and the value rises, even when he is asleep. The system is at fault, not companies. The same causes in 1929 and 2008. Unless you understand that you will be wallowing in ignorance. Those with vested interest in land will have us think differently.

      The economic system is flawed. It will happen again. Computer control will not stop it. All the computers in the world did not stop the 2008 crash.

      Banks or finance ministers did not collectively screw up the economy - the outdated "system", used by all western countries, collapsed. Fix the root cause not the symptom - the root is LAND speculation.

      Geoists want no, to little, speculation on LAND and its resources. Then stability will occur and no welfare giveaways to landowners. All benefit as the society becomes wealthy as ecomnomic growth is encouraged. The mechanism to curb land speculation is Land Valuation Taxation. Full LVT, the Single Tax, means no income tax also promoting economic growth. People keep what they earn. LVT also "reclaims" community created wealth to pay for community services. LVT does not use privately created wealth.

      Plug the hole of LAND speculation and encourage economic growth activities. Very simple and LVT does that very simply and cheaply.

      If GM goes bust the world will not crash around us. If the largest bank in the world goes bust the world should not crash around us. BUT if money is poured into land the consequences are dire as land falls and takes all with it.

      There is nothing in this world you can buy that reacts to markets likes LAND. Land is unique in its properties

    4. bubascary

      John John John John John, me flap? me ignorant? Have you been speaking to my husband??

      I disagree with you on every point you make and it's driving me crazy to the point of screaming at the computer screen!

      You link events from ancient history to current times to Land tax and it just doesn't work that way. There are many reasons why economies and empires collapse.

      I assume Auss's is Australia, really, we need more people? Isn't the world overpopulated? 18% of Oz is desert, who is going to pay that tax? The indigenous community? and with what will they pay? Roo meat and widgety grubs (look it up, a great delicacy)?

      I have to go spend some of my unfairly taxed money, will flap more later!

    5. Derek Sallans

      Its an average of about 47000 per household in Australia, for 2011, if all government income was from land tax. That's less than just my income tax for this year.

    6. bubascary

      Wow, hands up who earn more than 150k per year?? Definitely not majority of the Australian's. Say 2 parent earn 55k per year each they currently will pay $21424.00 tax

  38. Guest

    A series of viable solutions that would work only in unison with other countries, starting with the US. If the US was to embark, the rest would too. To me this makes more sense than what Fresco is suggesting we do out of the blue.

    1. Alexander Olsson

      I thought the exact same i'm in the movement and stuff, but watching this and realizing what they are suggesting, i see that this is a little bit more realistic. At least as a starting-point into something better in the future...

  39. AlmostAlwaysAwake

    The "Money Masters" are now moving to intellectual property (IP) as the new hard currency instead of real estate as the basis for their fiat currency debt-monetized fractional reserve central banking system led by omnipotent BIS in Basel; Mexico City; & Hong Kong. This video provides some important details, but true understanding requires an expanded over-all perspective.

  40. Momus12

    Land tax means a person can never really own their home. You take a mortgage, work your career to pay off that mortgage, retire, and spend the rest of your life paying a high rent to the government.

    This proposal would seem to make retirement very expensive. It seems to do away with any degree of private property.

    1. GodmanEnki exactly what THEY are planning. "Concentration camps, and NO "private property."
      I once did a "foundation-job" in a NATIONAL PARK; THAT PROPERTY WAS GIVEN-TO an astronaut! A human CANNOT penetrate the "Van Allen Radiation Belt"." It encircles the entire earth! Kubrick deserves an Oscar for his so-called "moon shots."

  41. JasonPhotographer

    I've spent the past year working my way through an awful lot of films from this site and this will be the very first time I've actually commented on here, but this documentary warrants it. I am no economist, but would like to hear from anyone who feels they can pick a hole in the call for land tax as proposed in this film, as I sure as hell can't. I've been pondering the ideas of Henry George for a while now and this documentary does a very good job of summarising the key points. Anyone who cares about the future generation should watch this.