If you were to ask us what we would do in the present state of the economy, our reply would be that we would not have got into this mess in the first place. In the early 1990s, when the Labour Party was developing its policies, we urged its policymakers to implement the system of land value taxation which the Campaign was set up to promote.

Let us suppose that Labour had pursued our policies with vigour when it was elected in 1997. By around 2005, the government’s finances would have been in a healthy state, debt would have been falling, and the welfare bill would have been shrinking as unemployment and benefits-dependency dwindled to the levels last experienced in the 1950s. The banking crisis would have largely passed Britain by, since there would have been no land price bubble-and-bust. Any impact from abroad, such as a drop in demand for exports, could have been taken care of by catching up on the country’s backlog of repairs to its infrastructure, and by bringing forward new projects. Of course, those in the banking, insurance, and financial services businesses who had wanted to continue in the old ways, could still have invested and dealt in foreign government and corporate bonds and in dodgy derivatives. They might have caught a cold in the process, but the consequences would have been for them to bear.

The LibDems’ proposal for some sort of land value tax has attracted a little bit of coverage recently, but it is not clear exactly what is proposed. The root of the trouble seems to be that Liberal Democrats (and politicians generally) and press reporters and commentators have only a shallow understanding of LVT. It is not helpful that not all LVT supporters seem to have real depth of understanding either. The resultant lack of confidence results in hesitancy, insecurity, and the unwillingness to fight hard enough (or at all) against doctrinal perversions, compromises, concessions, and exemptions.

Perhaps the most constructive comment on the solution to the Greek debt crisis has come from Andrus Ansip, prime minister of Estonia. He is reported to have said, “If I may give my advice to Greece, it is that you have to cut public expenditure. You have to make structural reforms. And you have to create a really efficient taxation system.” Whatever can he mean by a really efficient tax system?

A row has erupted over a report that attempted to put a value on the natural environment. The counter-argument is that the natural environment is priceless and that it is somehow sacrilegious to put a price on it. There is an important sense in which this is true, but in our present state of society, surely it is better to put a value on nature than to assume, as at present, that it is worthless?

We have now had a chance to study and think about the report produced by the Parliamentary Treasury Committee, following its inquiry at the beginning of the year made under the title “Principles of Tax Policy”. As we reported earlier, the case for land value taxation was presented by a large minority of the submissions and could hardly be ignored.

The report stated that

“the supporters of such a tax consider that it would tax economic rent rather than economic activity and would meet the OECD criterion that recurrent taxes on immovable property were the least harmful tax. However, as the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) notes, “the OECD acknowledges that it is politically difficult for governments to shift the tax base onto property.” The Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales (ICAEW) warned ‘Our initial conclusion is that even if such a move were desirable economically and let alone whether it was politically acceptable, it would involve a major rebalancing of the UK tax system which would take time to achieve, and risks introducing considerable distortions and behavioural changes’

“Not only are there political difficulties: practical matter such as the way in which such values would be assessed and the extent to which such a tax should take account of the current or the potential use of land, would also need careful consideration. We also note concerns that ‘While such a tax system would avoid distortions in economic behaviour, it would be highly unlikely to yield sufficient revenue to fund socially useful expenditure without producing substantial inequity.’ ”

The interesting thing about these objections is that not a single one of them is valid, as the Committee would have discovered if it had interviewed one of the LVT advocates, which it did not.

Benefit cheats exploit the system and rob the community. What they do is dishonest, criminal and a punishable offence. Benefit cheats obtain public funds to which they are not entitled. Is this surprising? The system is wide open to abuse. What else can we expect?

In a recent case, a 51-year-old woman claimed over £30,000 for 9 years and was discovered to have bank accounts in three countries, a home valued at £240,000, shares worth £320,000 and a speedboat. Terrible. But the woman is a financial genius! She rivals our MPs in financial manipulation skills!

Who are the biggest scroungers of them all?

The question is, to whom does the description ‘benefit cheat’ really belong? How about "Anyone who helps themselves to a natural resource or appropriates a natural 'benefit' or a value created by the community?" They might not be doing it intentionally. They might not even be aware that they are doing it at all. But are they not cheating the community out of what belongs, by right, to the entire community? We are referring, of course, to land value. All of it. Land value is created by the presence and activities of the community. It should be returned to the community, for the benefit of the community.

Unless this plain and simple truth is recognised, then we must all suffer the effects of a tax system that depresses wages and stifles initiative. It also, by its nature,  keeps many people in poverty - only to be alleviated by state benefits paid for from taxation. Which is where we came came in.

Why? What? How? Who?

• Why do your wages never rise above a bare minimum to live on
• What is causing the wealth divide
• How do corporations accumulate so much capital
• What is the cause of obscenely high pay
• Why do jobs seem to need to be created
• Why do I not feel like a free citizen
• Who is the biggest robber and benefits scrounger
• Who is taking no cuts nor bearing any burden
• Who is allowing this to happen