The Common Dividend Manifesto
On the natural inheritance of every Filipino, and the case for replacing regressive taxation with Common Use Fees.
I. The Problem of the Commons (likas-yaman)
The Philippines is a nation of extraordinary natural wealth: fertile land in the Central and Cagayan Valleys, mineral-rich mountains in Mindanao, fisheries stretching across 36,000 kilometers of coastline, and an electromagnetic spectrum now worth billions as the backbone of the digital economy.
Yet the majority of Filipinos remain poor.
This is not a paradox. It is the predictable result of a system that allows the value of shared natural resources — resources that no individual created — to be captured by a small number of private landowners, corporations, and license-holders. Meanwhile, workers pay income tax. Consumers pay VAT. The burden of funding the state falls on those who produce, not those who extract.
We propose reversing this logic.
II. On Natural Inheritance: Thomas Paine
In Agrarian Justice (1797), Thomas Paine wrote:
“Men did not make the earth… It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated land owes to the community a ground-rent for the land which he holds.”
Paine proposed a “National Fund” — funded by a ground-rent on land — to pay every citizen a lump-sum at maturity and an annual pension in old age. He called this not charity, but compensation for the original enclosure of the commons.
Two hundred and thirty years later, his logic is more urgent than ever. In the Philippines, the top 1% own an estimated 40% of the nation’s wealth, much of it tied to land. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program has stalled. Urban land near Manila’s CBD — land whose value was created by the collective investment of millions of citizens in roads, transit, and commerce — appreciates into the hands of a handful of families.
The Common Dividend is Paine’s National Fund, updated for the 21st-century Philippine context.
III. On Land Value Taxation: Henry George
In Progress and Poverty (1879), Henry George identified the root of poverty in wealthy societies: the private appropriation of land rent.
George observed that as a community grows and invests — in infrastructure, education, commerce — the value of land in that community rises. But this value increase is not created by the landowner. It is created by the community. Yet the landowner captures it through rising rents and land prices, while the community that created the value must fund itself through taxes on labor and production.
George’s solution: shift taxation from labor and production to the rental value of land (the “Location Value” or “Site Value”). A Site Value Tax (SVT) of sufficient size would:
- Recapture for the community the value it collectively created.
- Eliminate the incentive to hold land speculatively (vacant lots in Makati, agricultural land in Nueva Ecija kept fallow for resale).
- Remove the tax burden from workers and small businesses.
- Fund a universal dividend — what George called “equal rights” — for every citizen.
Our model targets a 3% annual Site Value Tax on Philippine land, estimated to yield 6.5% of GDP — the single largest source of Common Fund revenue.
IV. On Universal Basic Income: Guy Standing
The economist Guy Standing has documented the rise of the “precariat” — a class of workers in permanent economic insecurity, cycling through gig work, informal employment, and unemployment. In the Philippines, this is not an emerging trend; it is the majority experience.
Standing argues that a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is not welfare — it is a foundational payment recognizing that every citizen has a legitimate claim to the commons. Unlike means-tested benefits, a UBI:
- Carries no stigma.
- Cannot be captured by bureaucrats.
- Creates a genuine floor, not a poverty trap.
- Enhances the bargaining power of labor.
The Common Dividend is UBI funded by the right source: not debt, not income tax redistribution, but the rental value of the commons.
V. What We Propose
The Revenue Shift
Replace regressive taxes — VAT, income tax on labor — with Common Use Fees:
| Commons Source | Mechanism | Revenue Target |
|---|---|---|
| Land | 3% Site Value Tax | 6.5% GDP |
| Atmosphere | ₱2,800/tonne CO₂ equivalent | 1.5% GDP |
| Spectrum | Royalties on radio, satellite, fiber | 1.0% GDP |
| Natural Resources | Mining, coastal, forestry royalties | 1.0% GDP |
| Total | 10.0% GDP ≈ ₱3 Trillion |
The Distribution
The Common Fund distributes equally to every registered Filipino citizen:
- ₱3 Trillion ÷ 110 million Filipinos = ~₱27,000/year ≈ ₱2,250/month
This is not lavish. But combined with reduced VAT burden (the average Filipino family pays ~₱18,000/year in VAT on consumption), a family of five would see a net benefit exceeding ₱150,000 per year.
What Changes
- Landowners pay Site Value Tax on location value, but no longer pay income tax on improvements.
- Workers pay no income tax on their labor.
- Consumers face reduced consumption taxes.
- Corporations operating in the Philippines pay spectrum and natural resource royalties proportional to their use of the commons.
- Every Filipino receives a quarterly Common Dividend payment, unconditionally.
VI. Objections and Responses
“This is communism.”
No. Private property rights in improvements — homes, businesses, factories — are fully preserved. Only the rental value of land and natural resources, which no individual created, is subject to the fee. This is closer to the classical liberal tradition of Locke, Smith, and Mill than to Marx.
“It would devastate property values.”
It would reduce land values (specifically, speculation premiums), while increasing the value of improvements. Countries with higher land taxes (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan) have not collapsed. Reduced land speculation means lower costs for productive investment.
“We can’t afford ₱27,000 per person.”
The question is whether the Philippines can afford not to. The current system extracts value from the commons into private hands while taxing labor. The revenue exists — it is simply being captured privately rather than distributed publicly.
“The administrative challenge is too large.”
Land value assessment is a solved problem. The Philippines already has the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a land registration system, and the infrastructure for distribution (PhilSys). The challenge is political, not technical.
VII. A Call to Action
The Common Dividend is not a party platform. It is a framework — one that can be implemented incrementally, at the local level, through pilot programs, and eventually at the national level as evidence accumulates.
We invite economists, developers, farmers, urban poor, advocates, and anyone who believes that the wealth of the Philippines belongs to all Filipinos to join us.
Calculate your household’s benefit →
“The earth is the general property of the human race.” — Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 1797