Pages 1   2   3   4

4. The intrinsic difference between Natural and Man-made Capital or Property.

The phrase ‘the right to private property’ in the Constitution does not recognise the fundamental differences within classes of property — in particular that between property in natural and man-made capital.

1. Natural capital is that which is ‘God given’; - the Earth’s resources of land water, minerals, the electro magnetic and radio spectrum, ecosystems, diversity of life forms, genetic codes and also includes the collective of human knowledge and culture.
2. Man-made capital is that which is primarily created by individuals albeit using natural capital as a necessary input; - physical property such as homes, factories, offices, machinery, tools, roads, railways, automobiles, agricultural products, livestock etc. and non-physical property such as businesses, company shares, specific patents, copyrights, brands etc.
3. Property rights in man-made capital derive from the labour, ingenuity and risk invested by individuals in their creation, which is widely recognised culturally and socially by democratic States. Even so the use of these rights must be constrained by the overarching goals of the common good and a more clearly stated objective of sustainability.

5. The Common Share in Natural Capital arises from Human Consciousness

The provisions relating to ‘private property’ and the ‘common good’ in the Constitution is insufficient to describe the complex relations between private rights and community rights in natural property. In particular, the concept of common share arises in all property in natural capital even before the use rights are constrained by the common good.

1. Property rights in natural capital are not founded on individual effort and investment in their creation (they are by definition pre-existing). As individuals have not created natural goods, no individual can lay full claim to them. However, this does not infer that humanity, as a whole has no claim to the Earth’s bounty. Collectively, humanity has a claim recognised in all religions and spiritual traditions, which derives from its unique attribute of consciousness. But, although humanity’s birthright to the Earth is collectively based, it must be shared fairly by every human individual for sustainability. The reasons for this are practical and urgent;-
2. As the Earth’s only conscious entity and one which is impacting adversely on the global ecosystem, humanity now has to chose between a short-lived wasteful and carbon energy dependant mono-culture mining the Earth’s natural capital or, a long-term diverse ecosystem, stewarded by humanity and sustained by the Earth’s natural solar income.
3. By recognising our common share in the Earth’s resource and our individual responsibility, we can create the dynamic to switch to this necessary stewardship role. This is beginning to be recognised at many levels; - globally through the Rio and the Johannesburg Summits on Sustainable Development, in EU Directives and Nationally in Irelands Policy for Sustainable Development.
4. The capacity of the atmosphere to absorb greenhouse gases requires a global governance to ensure equitable and sustainable management through the global Kyoto agreement. In many other instances, such as for land and mineral resources, the nation state is the appropriate management and distributive agent.
5. The Irish citizen’s right to a common share of inheritance in national natural capital should be recognised in property rights and ensured by the Constitution.

6. Common Share in Natural Capital arising from Value Added by the Community

The second community claim to an interest in property in natural capital comes from value added by the community at national and local level. Most if not all value in natural property depends on and is derived from, community need and investment. This is very clear in the case of land, which is fixed in location and limited in supply. Land in a remote area with no infrastructure and low population is of much lower value than that in a populous area with adjacent infrastructure and convenient services.

1. All natural property includes a balance of public and private rights that are contingent and contextual as the social relations model of property illustrates. These relations must be constantly reviewed in terms of economic efficiency, social equity and environmental sustainability.
2. Economic efficiency requires that the community’s interest in property in land and other natural resources be recognised and factored into market transactions to prevent capitalisation of ‘economic rent’ into damagingly high land values or wasteful and profligate use. Economic efficiency also requires that the community gets a return from investment in infrastructure from the consequential rise in rents and capital values in land
3. Social equity requires that ownership of land and other natural resources be possible for all citizens, which is clearly not currently the case for aspiring farmers and first time house buyers. The monopoly characteristic of land operating un-modified within the market system, concentrates ownership in the hands of fewer and fewer people until social or economic breakdown drives major redistributive adjustments i.e. the Great Hunger followed by the Land Acts. Modifying social relations in natural property by including recognition of the common share as part of title fosters continual turnover, redistribution and wider possession thus obviating major upheavals.
4. Environmental sustainability requires that all resource use be reduced recognising its real limitations in supply or capacity. In particular, land use must be made more efficient by creating more integrated compact settlements as urban and rural sprawl is rapidly devouring resources and reducing transport and energy options for the future.

 

7. The community’s Common Share of natural resources should be collected through appropriate taxes, charges and royalties on the use of natural resources and particularly on land.

The fundamental cause of the problems that have prompted this review of the constitution is the failure to recognise the interests of the community sufficiently in property in land and other natural resources. Feasta holds that this common share of natural capital in land should be recognised in an annual rent or tax paid by the landowner to the community as part of a ‘tax shift’ from income taxes.

1. An annual site value tax should be levied on owners of development land including housing development land. This tax should be a percentage of the increased value due to zoning, infrastructure provision and the increased needs of the community. Where un-zoned land is given Planning Permission for a higher use (such as agriculturally zoned land for housing use), the tax should be a multiple of the annual site development tax. This tax could reduce taxes on transactions which inhibit turnover such as stamp duties and even capital gains taxes.
2. Local rates currently levied on commercial property should be replaced by a dual system comprising a community land tax on the land value of the site (ignoring the building or other man-made property) and a separate charge for services similar to the successful local dual tax in Pennsylvania US.
3. Immediate notice should be given of a community land tax on the site value of all existing residential property owner-occupied, holiday and investment to be levied within a short time frame. The community land tax should displace tax on income and should not be an additional burden on the normal working family. It should include measures to mitigate the effects on recent buyers of over-priced housing.
4. Other charges, royalties or taxes should recompense the community for the use of natural resources; - natural gas, minerals, water, the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb gases (carbon taxes), and the capacity of the land to absorb waste etc on a user or polluter pays principal.

8. Suggested Amendments to the Constitution Incorporating Principles:

Article 40.03

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen (add: including that of their common share in the natural resources of the Nation.)

Article 43

1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external (add man-made) goods. (add: and private use rights and a common share in the natural resources of the Nation and the Earth)

Article 45

The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:

That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

That the ownership and control of the (add man-made) material resources of the community may be so distributed amongst private individuals (omit: and the various classes) as best to subserve the common good (add: and that the benefit and enjoyment of natural resources may be shared so as best to serve equity and sustainability.

That, especially, the operation of free competition shall not be allowed so to develop as to result in the concentration of the ownership or control of essential commodities and natural resources of the nation in a few individuals to the common detriment and unsustainability.

That in what pertains to the control of credit the constant and predominant aim shall be the welfare of the people as a whole.

That there may be established on the land in economic security as many families as in the circumstances shall be (omit practicable) (add: sustainable to subserve the common good.)

Continue to Page 3




Pages 1   2   3   4