Henry George의 경제사상과 Glen H. Stassen의 정의로운 평화 만들기 : 토지가치세를 중심으로 = Henry George’s Economic Thought and Glen H. Stassen’s Just Peacemaking : Focusing on Land value taxation

토지가치세 도입을 통한 토지 과세 방안을 정의로운 평화의 관점에서 고찰했다.

The purpose of this thesis is to consider a measure to adopt land value taxation into South Korean society today, an idea that was asserted by Henry George, an American economic thinker and social reformer in the 19th century. The researcher will do that by analyzing Glen Stassen’s “Just Peacemaking.” George could not receive formal education and had to live as a laborer from his early years because of his poverty-stricken family background. However, he developed his own view of the world through personal reading, writing, and discussion.

The core of George’s economic ideology is the concept of “land justice.” He argued that the rent acquired by land ownership should be converted into the common ownership of the land. This is because everyone has a common right to use the land. He believed that the Bible said God created the land and had given it to all mankind, therefore no one should be excluded from the right to the land. He also thought that the phenomenon of land monopoly through the system of land ownership had created social poverty and inequality.

Unlike George’s point of view, social poverty was explained at that time by “wage-fund theory” and “population theory.” The wage-fund theory states that a fixed amount of funds exists in society and wages for workers are paid from the wage fund already prepared. Therefore, the workers’ wages are determined by the ratio of capital to the population of available workers. The population theory by Thomas Robert Malthus states that populations grow in geometric progression, but food production increases in arithmetic progression. Population, therefore, will grow faster than the supply of food, which will lead to a shortage of food, resulting in increased social poverty.

Both theories state that since social poverty is caused by the increase in population, poverty is a law of nature. George, however, argued that poverty is not a law of the nature by population growth, but is the product of social injustice by private landownership and tragic phenomena. The system to allow individual land ownership was therefore unacceptable. He thought the root of increasing poverty and social inequality was private land ownership. George organized his own economic ideas based on his understanding of the land.

He explained production and distribution, which are the central principles of economics, by focusing on the land and the new formulation of laws of production and distribution. He identified that, through the law of distribution, wages and interest (which are the prices for labor and capital) are limited according to the rise in rent. The development of civilization and material progress led to urbanization, which led to an increase in the price of land. If the rate of increase in rent is faster than the rate of increase in social wealth, the wages of workers will decrease. Interest, the price of capital, will also decrease.

Therefore, he argued that in order to reduce social poverty, the rent monopoly should be broken and the distribution of rent should lead to an increase in wages and interest. He also argued that, through distribution, rent should be converted into social wealth, not individual wealth. Just as land cannot be owned by an individual, rent cannot be monopolized by an individual. This is because the occurrence of rent is due to social development, not the result of the landlord's efforts or productive activities. It is unjust for an individual to monopolize a rent that reflects the values created by society.

George argued for a land value taxation in which society would take and redistribute the rent for public welfare. The land value taxation was a means to achieve the land justice that George asserted. George specifically demonstrated how efficient and good a land value taxation is. Since his assertion of the land value taxation, there have been intermittent attempts in many countries to put it into practice. However, it is difficult to find an example of where land value taxation has been introduced and adjusted well into a society. It has been over 30 years since land value taxation was first discussed in South Korea, but it has not gained much support in society as a whole.

The land value taxation is an efficient and good tax, as George argued, and has theoretical validity and logical coherence. It is also a tax that churches and Christians can support because it is in line with the narrative of the Bible. The reason land value taxation has not taken a position in society can be seen above all else as a matter of its suitability for real life. To be more specific, the biggest practical difficulty is the resistance and backlash of landowners due to their vested interests in the land. Social power issues surround land value taxation.

Therefore, the researcher’s discussion is to seek a “practical strategy” for the realistic introduction of land value taxation, which is in a deadlock, and a “practical plan” for the modern meaning of land value taxation.

Stassen’s Just Peacemaking provides useful direction for presenting a strategy that can ensure the practicality of land value taxation. The five steps of the practical strategy for the land value taxation proposed by the researcher are as follows: (1) ensure common safety and take independent initiatives, (2) use cooperative conflict resolution and acknowledge responsibility for conflict, (3) promote human rights and democracy through the realization of land justice, (4) work on just and sustainable economic development through land justice, and (5) voice the need to strengthen the public nature of land and increase solidarity with cooperative forces.

In addition, the researcher suggests the four steps to a practical plan for the modern meaning of land value taxation: (1) guarantee common rights to natural resources, (2) resolve inequality caused by economic antitrust, (3) abolish socio-economic privileges and the fair return of unearned income, (4) build a community econo

Ⅰ. 서론 1 1. 연구목적 1 2. 이론적 배경 10 3. 연구방법 22 Ⅱ. Henry George의 ‘토지이해’ : 소유권(Ownership)의 측면에서 28 1. Henry George의 문제의식 : 빈곤의 발생 원인과 토지의 ‘소유권’ 29 1) ‘임금기금설’과 ‘인구론’에 대한 비평 31 2) 빈곤 문제에 대한 Henry George의 관점 44 2. ‘토지소유권’에 대한 네 가지 관점 48 1) John Locke의 관점 50 2) Immanuel Kant의 관점 54 3) Pierre Joseph Proudhon의 관점 58 4) Karl Heinrich Marx의 관점 61 3. ‘소유권’과 관련된 성경적 입장 65 4. 소결론 : Henry George의 ‘토지이해’에 대한 평가 75 Ⅲ. Henry George의 ‘토지 중심의 경제학’ : 분배(Distribution)의 측면에서 79 1. 생산법칙과 토지 81 2. 분배법칙과 토지 85 1) 지대법칙 88 2) 임금법칙 91 3) 이자법칙 94 3. 물질적 진보와 분배법칙 98 4. 토지 사유제의 문제점 : 불평등과 빈곤문제의 핵심 104 1) 지대의 불의함 105 2) 토지 사유제의 불의함과 폐단 107 5. 소결론 : 토지 중심의 경제학이 갖는 의미 114 Ⅳ. Henry George의 ‘토지가치공유’과 ‘토지가치세’ : 공공성(Publicness)의 측면에서 118 1. 정치경제학의 필요성 : ‘공공성’ 확보를 위한 이론적 토대 119 2. ‘토지가치공유’의 실제적 대안 : ‘토지가치세제’(land value taxation) 121