New videos on land rent as a means of paying for a Citizen’s Basic Income

Mick Reiss has issued three educational videos that argue for a Citizen’s Basic Income paid for by charging rent on the value of land. The first video contains a thought experiment that reveals how today’s land ownership structure has evolved; the second pursues the thought experiment to ask how things might have been different; and the third discusses some of the difficulties involved in making the transition from the way things are to the way they might be.

The videos can be accessed by clicking on these links:

The first video.

The second video.

The third video.










2 thoughts on “New videos on land rent as a means of paying for a Citizen’s Basic Income

  1. Not being an academic BUT having been brought up with a sense of fairness in all matters I have always considered how land was obtained and always believed that the guy with the biggest army and best weapons was the one to end up owning the land.In other words the land was STOLEN .Your video has confirmed my thoughts on how land was obtained and I am sure if I studied history this would also confirm my thinking on this subject.I realise however to even think this way is extremely radical and to change the status quo is going to be a huge battle
    Thank you for making this video I found it very educational

  2. Hello,
    I have some questions which do not align with the analysis in your video. Three examples.
    1) A person inherits a house, he splits the house in two, he rents the upstairs and lives downstairs. The house came with a freehold. The “profit” on residence was obtained on the bricks and mortar not on the land, purely because the bricks and mortar went through a process of inflation from £100 per calendar month to £2400 per month. The Bricks and Mortar are an obstacle to living without paying over % of income for live as much as the land. What mechanism would need to exist
    2) The same person had to split the house into two parts, because they were on a low income, with a ill dependant, by owning a house, they could not maintain the house or live, because the benefits system refused income sufficient to maintain the home and no other income was forth coming. What mechanism would need to exist to prevent a coercive relationship ever developing around residence on land with or without shelter for those below the median income?
    3) A person rents a home, The home is in the same ownership (imagine it to be social ownership), however the bricks and mortar increase in price by 9% each year, till the home take 50% of their annual income.
    4) A housing association builds homes on land which is community owned, although the bricks and mortar has been paid for twice over, the rent is now 53% of income because that is the “market rate”.
    5) Social resistance to rent is based on the many controls placed on people who rent above those who buy. These controls are “social” or “private” controls. Rent is subject to the whims of another. What mechanisms exist?

    Many thanks for your efforts
    Saeeda Bukhari

Comments are closed.