ISO 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 X891 
 
 ^..mowi ipli7Ti.i$ 
 
 3777 
 
HD1313 .Bm" ""'""''" '■"'™^^ 
 ^^'mmiiHiiiiiniifMiiiSR ®'"a'^ *3x, comp. b 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 030 053 478 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030053478 
 
DEBATERS' HANDBOOK SERIES 
 
 SINGLE TAX 
 
DEBATERS' 
 HANDBOOK SERIES 
 
 Enlargement of the United States Navy 
 (3d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Direct Primaries (3d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Capital Punishment (2d ed. rev.) 
 
 Commission Plan of Municipal Govern- 
 ment (3d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Election of United States Senators (2d ed. 
 rev.) 
 
 Income Tax (2d ed. rev. and enl. ) 
 
 Initiative and Referendum (3d ed. rev. 
 and enl.) 
 
 Central Bank of the United States 
 
 Woman Suffrage (2d ed. rev.) 
 
 Municipal Ownership (2d ed. rev. and 
 enl.) 
 
 Child Labor (2d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Open versus Closed Shop (2d ed.) 
 
 Employment of Women 
 
 Federal Control of Interstate Corporations 
 (2d ed, rev. and enl.) 
 
 Parcels Post (2d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Compulsory Arbitration of Industrial Dis- 
 putes (2d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Compulsory Insurance 
 
 Conservation of Natural Resources 
 
 Free Trade vs. Protection 
 
 Government Ownership of Railroads (2d 
 ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Reciprocity 
 
 Trade Unions 
 
 Recall (2d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 World Peace 
 
 Government Ownership of Telegraph and 
 Telephone 
 
 Single Tax 
 
 Monroe Doctrine 
 
 HANDBOOK SERIES 
 
 European War 
 Agricultural Credit 
 
 Other titles in preparation 
 
 Each volume, one dollar net 
 
Debaters' Handbook Series 
 
 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 ON 
 
 SINGLE TAX 
 
 COMPILED BY 
 EDNA D. BULLOCK 
 
 THE H. W. WILSON COMPANY 
 
 WHITE PLAINS, N. Y. and NEW YORK CITY 
 
 1915 
 
/\, 2 '^ ^ ^ ^ ' 
 
 Published March, 1915 
 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
 
 This Handbook conforms to the general plan of the Debaters' 
 Handbook Series in its adaptation to the needs of the seeker for 
 general information as well as for the debater. 
 
 In arrangement it follows the customary sequence of brief, 
 bibliography, general, affirmative and negative reprints. For the 
 brief the compiler is indebted to Mr. Leo Jones, of the 'Bureau 
 of Debate and Discussion, University of Washington, Seattle. 
 
 Bibliography of the subject is meager, though there is an im- 
 measurable literature, much of which is not itemized in the 
 Handbook because it is comprehended in the publications of the 
 Joseph Fels Fund, and those of temporary agencies for defeating 
 tax legislation. The bibliography is made up largely of literature 
 that will set the subject squarely before the average citizen's 
 mind, though the economic student of the abstract theory of tax- 
 ation has not been ignored. 
 
 Students are advised to make use of the Fels Fund publica- 
 tions, the numbers of the Public, and the Single Tax Review, 
 and the publications of the following societies : 
 
 Equitable Taxation League of Missouri, St. Louis. William 
 Preston Hill. 
 
 American Single Tax League, 27 Union Square, New York 
 City. C. H. Ingersoll. 
 
 Washington Equal Taxation League, Haller Building, Seattle, 
 Wash. C. H. Shields. 
 
 Anti Single Tax Association, 508 Massachusetts Building, 
 Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 Land Owners' Protective Association, 1401 Waldheim Build- 
 ing, Kansas City, Mo. E. B. Silvers. 
 
 Home Rule in Taxation League, 516 American Bank Building, 
 Los Angeles, Cal. 
 September, 1914. E. D. B. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Brief 
 
 General Statement ix 
 
 The Affirmative xiii 
 
 The Negative xvi 
 
 BiBLIOGKAPHY 
 
 General References xxi 
 
 Affirmative References xxiii 
 
 Negative References xxvi 
 
 Introduction • i 
 
 General Discussion 
 
 Abbott, Lyman. Rights of Man Outlook 3 
 
 Blackmar, F. W. Tax Reform Kansas City Star 10 
 
 Local Option in Taxation 
 
 Commonwealth Club of California. Transactions 13 
 
 George, Henry. Single Tax World Almanac 32 
 
 Huie, A. G. Single Tax in New South Wales Public 35 
 
 Ingersoll, Charles H. Present Status of the Single Tax 
 
 Movement Here and Abroad Survey 38 
 
 Single Tax Outlook 43 
 
 Tax Reform League of Seattle. Erickson Single Tax 
 
 Amendment 47 
 
 Taxation of Land Values in Canada Public 50 
 
 Typical Objections to Land Value Taxation Public 53 
 
 Woollen, Evans. Third View of the Single Tax 
 
 Atlantic Monthly 55 
 
 Affirmative Discussion 
 
 Hall, Bolton. Land Question and Economic Progress 
 
 Arena 61 
 
 Howe, Frederic C. Way Toward the Model City 
 
 World's Work 63 
 
 Johnson, Tom L. Taxation of Land Values 
 
 Congressional Record 73 
 
viii CONTENTS 
 
 Garland, Hamlin. Single Tax in Actual Application. .Arena 75 
 Garrison, F. W. Case for the Single Tax. .Atlantic Monthly 8i 
 
 Land Tax in Germany St. Joseph News Press 93 
 
 Nock, Albert Jay. Community That Pays Its Own Bills.. . 
 
 American Magazine 94 
 
 Nock, Albert Jay. Why Nature's Way Is Best 
 
 American Magazine 103 
 
 Ontario, Canada. Tax Reform and Direct Legislation 
 
 League. How the Farmer Pays City Taxes 107 
 
 Spillane, Richard. Taxing Enterprise Outlook no 
 
 Tax System Created a Fortune Kansas City Times 117 
 
 What the Single Tax Advocates Claim for Their Theory.. . 
 
 Nebraska State Journal 118 
 
 Negative Discussion 
 
 Fallon, George. Single Tax Explained 123 
 
 Johnson, A. S. Case Against the Single Tax 
 
 Atlantic Monthly 127 
 
 Seligman, Edwin R. A. The Single Tax. Essays in Taxation 140 
 Seligman, Edwin R. A. Halving the Tax Rate on Build- 
 ings Survey 161 
 
 Shields, Charles H. Single Tax Exposed 173 
 
 Shortt, Adam. Single Tax in Canada 
 
 National Tax Association. Proceedings 178 
 
 Taylor, Newton M. Criticism of the Single Tax 
 
 Equity Series 182 
 
BRIEF 
 
 Prepared by Leo Jones, and reprinted, by permission, from University 
 Extension Bulletin, No. 6, University of Washington, Seattle. 
 
 Resolved, That all public revenues should be raised by a 
 single tax on land values ; constitutionality granted. 
 
 General Statement 
 
 Henry George is often spoken of as being the originator and 
 founder of the Single Tax doctrine. Such is not the case. The 
 plan of raising all revenues for public purposes by a tax as- 
 sessed against some single kind of property or based on some 
 single criterion of wealth or ability is not a new one. There 
 have been economists and tax reformers in the last two hun- 
 dred years who have proposed single taxes on expenditure, 
 houses, incomes, capital, and land. 
 
 The theory of the Single Tax on land values such as proposed 
 by Henry George was promulgated a great many years before 
 Mr. George presented it. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Na- 
 tions" recognized the fundamental basis of the land value tax, 
 namely, that land values are created by society and not by the 
 individuals owning the land. But the doctrine was first fully 
 conceived and formulated by a French school called the Physio- 
 crats. Henry George himself recognized this and dedicated 
 his book, "Protection and Free Trade," "To the memory of those 
 illustrious Frenchmen of a century ago, Quesnay, Turgot, 
 Mirabeau, Condorcet, Dupont, and their fellows, who in the 
 night of despotism foresaw the glories of the coming day." 
 
 The theory of the Physiocrats may be briefly set forth as fol- 
 lows : Land is the only source of new wealth and therefore the 
 cultivation of the soil is the only really productive industry. 
 Agriculture yields, in addition to the returns on labor and 
 capital, a net product which is called rent. Since no new wealth 
 can come from any other source all taxes must of necessity come 
 out of rent. If placed on other things, they would be simply 
 shifted to the owner of the land. All revenues should therefore 
 be raised by a single tax on the rent of land. 
 
X BRIEF 
 
 Later, John Stuart Mill did much to develop the single tax 
 on land theory. Mill laid great stress on the fact that there 
 is an enormous unearned increment in the increase in land 
 values due to the growth of population, formation of cities 
 and other influences outside the individual. About 1870 Mill 
 was president of a Land-Tenure Reform Association in England. 
 The following is an extract from their program. 
 
 "IV. To claim for the benefit of the State, the Interception 
 by Taxation of the Future Unearned Increase of the rent of 
 land, (so far as the same can be ascertained), or a great part 
 of that increase, which is continually taking place without any 
 effort or outlay by the proprietors, merely through the growth 
 of population and wealth; reserving to owners the option of 
 relinquishing their property to the State, at the market value 
 which it may have acquired at the time when this principle may 
 be adopted by the Legislature." This differs from Mr. George's 
 plan only in that it applies to future and not to all unearned 
 increment past and future. 
 
 To Henry George belongs the credit of fully working out the 
 Single Tax philosophy in its economic and social aspects and of 
 stating the theory in a popular and effective form. His great- 
 est work, "Progress and Poverty," was finished in 1879. It 
 has been translated into several foreign languages and has 
 aroused much interest and comment in all the civilized nations. 
 The essence of the Single Tax doctrine is well stated in the fol- 
 lowing extract from Henry George: "All men are equally 
 entitled to the use and enjoyment of what God has created and 
 of what is gained by the general growth and improvement of 
 the community of which they are a part. Therefore, no one 
 should be permitted to hold natural opportunities without a 
 fair return to all for any special privilege thus accorded to him, 
 and that value which the growth and improvement of the 
 community attach to land should be taken for the use of the 
 community." 
 
 In practical appHcation the full Henry George Single Tax has 
 never been tried, but an approximation, of it is in force in 
 several parts of the world, and it may be said that the general 
 tendency of tax reform in all countries is toward the higher 
 taxation of land values. The Australasian tax system includes 
 a modified Single Tax. It is in operation in New Zealand 
 
BRIEF xi 
 
 and many parts of Australia. It permits any county to exempt 
 from taxation all improvements and capital invested in pro- 
 ductive industry. In 1892 New South Wales adopted a land 
 tax and in igoi Queensland exempted nearly all improvements 
 from taxation. Vancouver, Victoria, Edmonton and other urban 
 and rural municipalities of Western and Northwestern Canada 
 have land value taxes, from which they raise the bulk of their 
 revenues for local purposes. In Manitoba all improvements in 
 or on land are exempt and taxes are levied upon "prairie 
 values" alone. 
 
 At the November election in 1912 the people of Oregon 
 rejected the Single Tax at the polls. In Washington several 
 attempts have been made to secure the adoption of a tax on land 
 values as a part of the system of local taxation. Everett adopted 
 such a tax two or three years ago and a few months afterward 
 repealed the law upon the adoption of a new charter. Last 
 election in November, 1912, it was again adopted. The Everett 
 charter provides for an exemption of twenty-five per cent of 
 the personal property and improvements of the city in the year 
 1913, fifty per cent in 1914, seventy-five per cent in 191S and then 
 total exemption of improvements, placing the entire tax on 
 land rental. 
 
 There have been two distinct lines of argument which have 
 been put forth in support of the Single Tax. Isaac Sherman 
 and his followers favored the Single Tax because they thought 
 that the tax would be shifted to the consumers and would thus 
 be diffused and every person would bear some share of the 
 taxes. Henry George and his followers advocated the tax for a 
 reason fundamentally opposed to this, namely, that the tax 
 would stay where it was put and could not be shifted. Econo- 
 mists are agreed that the latter view is correct and that whatever 
 the other objections to the tax the contention that it can be 
 shifted to any considerable extent is untenable. 
 
 Two classes of persons have opposed the adoption of the 
 Single Tax — conservatives who fear the results of the appropria- 
 tion by society of rent, and socialists and other radicals who 
 regard the Single Tax as a half-hearted measure which will not 
 remedy the fundamental defects of the social and industrial 
 organization. 
 
 The conservatives are undoubtedly right when they say that 
 
xii BRIEF 
 
 the full application of the Single Tax amounts to the socialization 
 of land, the abolition of private property in land as we now 
 have it, the government becoming the universal landlord and 
 the selling value of land tending to approach nothing. The 
 very theory upon which Single Tax is founded, namely, that land 
 values are God given or socially created, is inconsistent with the 
 institution of private property in land, the essential element of 
 which is the private right to the income from these natural 
 or social values. There would still remain under the full Single 
 Tax the right of possession and of alienation, the right to use 
 the land for productive purposes with full control and ownership 
 of the results of labor expended on the land and improvements 
 made, but the bare land itself would pay back to society in the 
 form of taxes the full value which the presence of society gave 
 to that land. There would be community but not common 
 ownership of land. 
 
 From the standpoint of the socialistic doctrine, the socialists 
 are correct in their contention that the socialization of land 
 would not greatly modify what, to them, is the fundamental 
 defect in our industrial organization — the capitalistic system 
 of production. Free land does not mean equality of opportunity 
 because those with capital to improve land would have a great 
 advantage over those without capital. The poor man has no 
 capital and would be unable to improve the land. The land 
 therefore would be held and improved as at present by the 
 capitalist class and the poor man would continue to compete 
 for the opportunity to sell his labor. Some socialists are 
 opposed to the Single Tax because they feel that it would rivet 
 the chains of the workingman. Others believe in it as a step 
 toward the socialization of all of the instruments of production. 
 
 It is evident from what has been said that the full Single Tax 
 is by no means merely a tax. It is a plan of reorganization of 
 society with a primary view of securing a more equal distribu- 
 tion of wealth and incidentally raising revenues for the 
 government. 
 
 Properly speaking, the term "Single Tax" as applied to the 
 systems of taxation advocated by present day Single Taxers is a 
 misnomer. The system which is usually proposed is not a 
 "single," but includes other taxes, such as franchise taxes and 
 taxes on all monopoly profits, in addition to the land value tax; 
 
BRIEF xiii 
 
 some of the Single Taxers would retain repressive taxes, such 
 as the liquor license; others would include the inheritance tax 
 as a part of their program. Also, the tax is usually proposed 
 as a local tax and not as a state or national tax, but most of the 
 adherents of Single Tax look upon the adoption of the Single 
 Tax for local purposes as merely a step towards its application 
 in the larger units of government. 
 
 The Affirmative 
 
 All public revenue should be raised by a Single Tax on land 
 values, because 
 I. The present national, state, and local taxes are fundament- 
 ally defective, for 
 
 A. They are taxes on industry and improvements, and 
 
 industry and improvements should not be taxed, for 
 
 1. Taxes falling on the products of labor discourage 
 
 their production. 
 
 2. Taxes falling on improvements lessen the amount 
 
 of improvements. 
 
 B. They are unjust taxes, for 
 
 1. They can be easily evaded. 
 
 2. They can to a considerable extent be shifted. 
 
 3. They bear heavily on the poor. 
 
 4. All taxes on the products of individual labor are 
 
 unjust when society has a fund of its own from 
 which to draw its revenues. 
 
 C. They are expensive, complex, and cumbersome, for 
 I. They are levied on a great variety of objects and 
 
 require complicated machinery, and duplication 
 of machinery, for their assessment and collec- 
 tion, 
 if. The Single Tax on land values will do away with the defects 
 of the present system, for 
 
 A. It will exempt industry and improvements from taxa- 
 
 tion, for 
 I. Land will bear the entire burden. 
 
 B. It is a just tax, for 
 
 I. It cannot be evaded, for 
 
 a. Land cannot be concealed or carried off. 
 
 b. Land values can be easily determined. 
 
xiv BRIEF 
 
 2. It cannot be shifted, for 
 
 a. It will be paid out of rent. 
 
 b. Landlords cannot pay the tax from an in- 
 
 crease in rents, for 
 (i) Rents depend on supply and demand. 
 
 c. Economists are agreed that the Single Tax 
 
 cannot be shifted. 
 
 3. It is a burden on no one, for 
 
 a. The fund upon which it draws is created by 
 
 society for 
 (i) All land values and increase in land values 
 are due to the presence of society, for 
 (a) If society were not there the land 
 
 would have no value, 
 (b)' Individual labor or improvements do 
 not add to the value of the bare 
 land. 
 
 b. It merely takes from the land owner the un- 
 
 earned increment of land due to presence 
 of society, which increment is a social and 
 not an individual product. 
 
 C. It is a simple tax, for 
 
 1. There is one object of taxation, land values. 
 
 2. Little machinery is necessary in order to assess 
 
 and collect a tax on land values only. 
 
 D. It is an adequate tax, for 
 
 I. It has a large fund from which to draw revenue in 
 the annual rental value of land and in the in- 
 crease in value of land from year to year. 
 
 E. It is an elastic tax, for 
 
 I. The amount of revenue raised by the tax can be 
 automatically raised or lowered by changing the 
 rate, for 
 a. The fund on which it draws is much larger 
 than is necesary for all governmental ex- 
 penditure. 
 III. The single tax on land values will bring about desirable 
 economic and social re-adjustments which will be bene- 
 ficial, for 
 
BRIEF XV 
 
 A. The condition of the laboring classes will be improved, 
 
 for 
 
 1. Land will be comparatively easy to get, for 
 
 a. Idle land will be forced into the market and 
 prices will fall for 
 (i) It will be taxed at its full value. 
 (2) Speculators will not be able to hold it 
 out of use and pay taxes on it. 
 
 2. The slum problem will be remedied, for 
 
 a. Owners of cheap tenements will have to build 
 
 better buildings in order to get sufficient 
 income to pay the taxes on the land value. 
 
 b. Vacant land will be available at cheap prices. 
 
 c. The exemption of improvements will stimulate 
 
 building. 
 
 3. Wages will be increased, for 
 
 a. Employers will be obliged to pay working- 
 
 men the equivalent of what they could pro- 
 duce on the land, for 
 (l) Land will be available to anyone who will 
 put it into productive use. 
 
 b. The opening up of the vast areas now held 
 
 out of use for purposes of speculation will 
 give a great amount of employment to labor. 
 
 B. The farmer will be benefited, for 
 
 1. The products of his labor, such as crops, his im- 
 
 provements, implements, stocks, etc., will be 
 exempt from taxation. 
 
 2. He will actually pay less taxes than at present, for 
 a. The vast holdings of idle land in both cities 
 
 and rural districts will bear their just share 
 of the taxes. 
 
 C. All forms of industry will be stimulated by the exemp- 
 
 tion of labor, capital and all improvements on land, 
 from taxation and by making the natural resources 
 accessible to all. 
 IV. The Single Tax on land values has succeeded where it has 
 been tried, for 
 A. It has greatly benefited Vancouver, Victoria, Edmonton 
 and other Canadian municipalities. 
 
xvi BRIEF 
 
 B. It has worked well in New Zealand and Australia. 
 
 C. Taxes with some Single Tax features are being used 
 
 successfully by England, Germany and other Euro- 
 pean countries. 
 
 The Negative 
 
 Public revenues should not be raised by a Single Tax on land 
 values because 
 I. The present system of taxation is not inherently defective, 
 for 
 
 A. On the whole, it is in harmony with the great prin- 
 
 ciple of taxation that each individual should con- 
 tribute to the support of the government in pro- 
 portion to his ability to pay, for 
 
 1. Property taxes form the basis of our system of 
 
 taxation. 
 
 2. Property is one of the best evidences of ability to 
 
 pay. 
 
 B. It is a diversified system, and diversiiication in a tax- 
 
 ing system is desirable, for 
 
 1. If any injustice results from one tax it is apt to 
 
 be equalized or mitigated by the other taxes. 
 
 2. A diversified system is a more certain source of 
 
 revenue, for 
 a. If one source fails, others can be drawn upon. 
 
 3. It affords greater elasticity. 
 
 4. It requires some contribution from practically every 
 
 citizen. 
 
 5. It permits the application of taxes for social or 
 
 political purposes. 
 
 C. The specific defects in the present system can be 
 
 remedied by specific reforms without overthrowing 
 
 the entire system, for 
 
 I. The greatest evil of the present system of state 
 
 and local taxation — evasion — can be done away 
 
 with by the classification of property for purposes 
 
 of taxation and by the taxation of different 
 
 classes at different rates, for 
 
 a. If a low rate is placed on intangible and other 
 
 personal property, the tax will not be evaded. 
 
BRIEF xvii 
 
 The classified property tax has practically done 
 away with evasion in the states where it 
 has been adopted. 
 
 2. Injustices in the present system can be remedied 
 
 \hy the extension of progressive inheritance 
 taxes in the states and the adoption of a pro- 
 gressive income tax by the federal government. 
 
 3. The separation of state and local taxation will 
 
 secure greater simplicity and effectiveness in 
 the taxing system. 
 II. Viewed solely as a system of taxation, the Single Tax in 
 land values is defective for 
 A. It is unjust, for 
 
 1. It fails to conform to the canon of taxation that 
 
 all should pay taxes in proportion to their ability 
 to pay, for 
 
 a. It taxes individuals only in proportion to the 
 
 value of the land which they own. 
 
 b. It taxes the poor men's land and exempts the 
 
 rich men's personal property, mansions, sky- 
 scrapers, and factories. 
 
 c. It takes no consideration of income, produc- 
 
 tiveness of property, or any of the evidences 
 of ability to pay. 
 
 d. It exempts nearly all monopolies and trusts. 
 
 2. It discriminates against a certain class in society 
 
 — the farmers, for 
 a. It compels them to bear an undue share of the 
 burdens of taxation. 
 
 3. It discriminates against one of the elements of 
 
 production, for 
 a. Labor and capital should also bear some of the 
 burden of taxation, for 
 (i) There are socially created values in labor 
 and capital as well as in land, for 
 
 (a) The products of labor owe their 
 
 value to the presence of society. 
 
 (b) The factory and store would be 
 \ worthless if society did not offer 
 
 a market for their products. 
 
BRIEF 
 
 (cj The business man's profits and the 
 ^ income of the professional man 
 are socially created values, 
 (d) Houses and all other improvements 
 ^ have the same kind of socially 
 created value as has land. 
 It is unjust to take the increment of land in taxes 
 and not reimburse the landowner when there 
 is a decrement in the value of his land. 
 
 B. It is difficult of assessment, for 
 
 I. It is often impossible to determine land values ex- 
 clusive of improvements, for 
 a. The value of irrigated, cultivated or fertilized 
 land cannot be correctly estimated apart from 
 the improvements. 
 
 C. It is inelastic, for 
 
 1. It cannot be increased, for 
 
 a. The purpose of the Single Tax is to take all 
 of the rent of land. 
 
 2. The selling value and rental value of land fluctuate 
 
 and will cause fluctuations in the amounts raised 
 by the tax. 
 
 D. It is inadequate, for 
 
 I. In many poor commmiities the rent of land is in- 
 sufficient to meet the expenses of government. 
 
 E. It ,will lead to extravagance, for 
 
 1. In many communities there are enormous land 
 
 values and large funds will pour into the pubhc 
 treasury. 
 
 2. The interest of citizens in having government 
 
 economically administered will be lessened, for 
 a. A majority will pay no taxes. 
 
 F. Its adoption will necessitate the abolition of revenue 
 
 taxes, such as the taxes on opium, liquors, tobacco, 
 adulterated foods, etc., and of protective taxes, such 
 as the tariff. 
 HI. As a scheme for social and economic reform the Single Tax 
 on land values is undesirable, for 
 A. It will result in the confiscation of private property in 
 land, for 
 
BRIEF xix 
 
 I. The appropriation by society of the rent and in- 
 crease in value of land will abolish the selling 
 value of land and constitute the state the uni- 
 versal landlord. 
 
 B. Confiscation of private property in land is not desirable, 
 
 for 
 
 1. By a process of evolution society has evolved 
 
 from a state of common or community owner- 
 ship of land to a state of private ownership of 
 land. 
 
 2. Private ownership of land is the basis of our civili- 
 
 zation. 
 
 C. It will result in discouraging the policy of conservation, 
 
 for 
 
 1. A premium will be placed on exploiting natural 
 
 resources. 
 
 2. Timber lands especially will suffer, for 
 
 a. The timber will have to be cut to pay the 
 taxes for 
 (i) The land yields no income until the 
 timber is cut. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 A star (*) preceding a reference indicates that the entire article or a 
 part of it has been reprinted in this volume. 
 
 General References 
 Books and Pamphlets 
 
 Bliss, William D. B., and Binder, Rudolph M. New Encyclopedia 
 of Social Reform. New Ed. Funk and Wagnalls. 1908. 
 
 Bullock, Charles J., Editor. Selected Readings in Public Finance. 
 Ginn. 1906. 
 
 *Commonwealth Club of California. Transactions, g : 259-88. 
 My. '14. Local Option in Taxation. 
 
 Daniels, Winthrop More. Elements of Public Finance. Chapter 
 IV. Taxation. Holt. 1909. 
 
 Hadley, Arthur Twining. Economics. Chapter XIV. Govern- 
 ment Revenue. Putnam's. 1906. c. 1896. 
 
 Holt, Henry. On the Civic Relations. Book III. Taxation. 
 Ed. 3. Houghton, Mifflin. 1907. 
 
 Lusk, H. H. Our Foes at Home. Chapters VII and VIII. Taxa- 
 tion. Doubleday. 1899. 
 
 Marshall, Leon Carroll; Wright, Chester Whitney, and Field, 
 James Alfred, Editors. Materials for the Study of Elemen- 
 tary Economics. Chapter XIX. Public Finance and Taxation. 
 University of Chicago Press. 1913. 
 
 Matthews, Frank. Taxation and the Distribution of Wealth. 
 Doubleday. 1914. 
 
 Means, David MacGregor. Methods of Taxation. Dodd, Mead. 
 1909. 
 
 Mill, John Stuart. Principles of Political Economy. 2v. Ap- 
 pleton. 
 
 Chapter on taxation. 
 
 Minnesota Tax Commission. Biennial Report, v. 3. 1912. Chap- 
 ter XII. Taxation of Land Values. 
 
 National Tax Association. Proceedings, 1907. i : 294-303. Tax- 
 ation of Unearned Increment. H. J. Davenport. 
 
xxii BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 National Tax Association. Proceedings, igio. 4:87-110. Income 
 Tax as a Substitute for the Property Tax on Certain Forms 
 of Personalty in the State of Wisconsin. T. S. Adams. 
 
 National Tax Association. Proceedings, 1913. 7 : 106-37. Incre- 
 ment Taxes and the Partial Exemption of Buildings. Joseph 
 French Johnson. Discussion. C. H. Shields, C. B. Fillebrown 
 and Others. 
 
 Seligman, E. R. A. Shifting and Incidence of Taxation. Ed. 2. 
 Macmillan. 1902. 
 
 Taussig, F. W. Principles of Economics. 2v. Macmillan. 1911. 
 
 Chapters on land tenure and taxation, 
 
 *Tax Reform League, Seattle. Erickson Tax Exemption Amend- 
 ment. 
 
 Washington, University of, Seattle. Extension Division. Tax- 
 ation in Washington. Pt. 5. Taxation of Land Values. (Ex- 
 tension Bulletin, no. 12, August, 1914.) 
 
 *World Almanac. The Single Tax; a Statement of Principles 
 by Henry George. 
 
 Magazine Articles 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 51 : 34-40. Ja. '14. Taxation 
 of Real Estate Values and Its Effect on Housing. D. F. 
 Wilcox. 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 113 : S45-8. Ap. '14. Third View of the Single 
 Tax. Evans Woollen. 
 
 Independent. 72:802-3. Ap. 11, '12. Single Tax for China. 
 
 Journal of Political Economy. 16 : 13-22. Ja. '08. Rating on Un- 
 improved Value in New Zealand. J. E. LeRossignol and 
 W. D. Stewart. 
 
 Journal of Social Science. 27 : 1-127. O. '90. Single Tax Debate. 
 
 Proceedings of American Social Science Association, Saratoga, 1890. 
 
 ♦Kansas City Star. Ap. 7, '12. Tax Reform. F. W. Blackmar. 
 
 National Municipal Review. 3:737-41. O. '14. Single Tax and 
 American Municipalities. Joseph D, Miller. 
 
 ♦Outlook. 68:171-6. My. 18, '01. Rights of Man. Chapter VII. 
 The Single Tax. Lyman Abbott. 
 
 ♦Outlook. 105:115-8. S. 20, '13. Single Tax. 
 
 ♦Public. 14:233-4. Mr. 10, '11. Taxation of Land Values in Can- 
 ada: Correspondence from Edmonton, published in the To- 
 ronto Daily Star, October 22, 1910. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxiii 
 
 *Public. 14:392-3, Ap. 28, '11. Single Tax in New Soutli Wales. 
 
 G. A. Huie. 
 Public. 14:511-3. Je. 2, '11. Single Tax in Canada. A. B. Farmer. 
 *Public. IS : 436-8. My. 10, '12. Typical Objections to Land Value 
 
 Taxation. 
 Public. IS : 679-82. Jl. 19, '12. Mr. Lloyd-George's Scheme of 
 
 Land Taxation and the British Newspapers. 
 Quarterly Journal of Economics. 27:539-43. My. '13. Proposed 
 
 Increment Tax for New York. J. F. Johnson. 
 *Survey. 31 : 520, 538. Ja. 31, '14. Present Status of the Single 
 
 Tax Movement Here and Abroad. Charles H. Ingersoll. 
 Survey. 31 : 697-702. Mr. 7, '14. Halving the Tax Rate on Build- 
 ings; Pro and Con. John J. Murphy. E. R."A. Seligman. 
 World Today. 18:276-87. Mr. '10. British Budget and the Single 
 
 Tax. A. W. Wishart. 
 
 Affirmative References 
 Books and Pamphlets 
 
 Assessment Amendment Act. W. M. and H. S. Southam. The 
 Citizen. Ottawa, Ontario. 
 
 Behrens, Lewis H. and Singer, Ignatius. Story of My Dictator- 
 ship ; the Taxation of Land Values Clearly Explained. Lon- 
 don. United Committee for the Taxation of Land Values. 
 
 Bigelow, H. S. Taxation of Land Values. The Public. Ells- 
 worth Building, Chicago. 
 
 Dove, Patrick Edward. Theory of Human Progression, Abridged 
 by Julia A. Kellogg, N. Y. Blanchard. igio. 
 
 Fillebrown, C. B. A B C of Taxation, with Boston Object Les- 
 sons, Private Property in Land, and other Essays and Ad- 
 dresses. Ed. 2. Doubleday. 1909. 
 
 Fillebrown, C. B. Single Tax Handbook for 1913. Author. 
 Boston. 
 
 Fillebrown, C. B. Taxation. Chapter X. The Land Tax. McClurg. 
 
 1914- 
 
 George, Henry. Progress and Poverty. Various Editions. 
 
 George, Henry. Single Tax, What It Is, and Why We Urge It. 
 Joseph Fels Fund. Cincinnati. 
 
 Grenell, Judson. Single Tax ; What It Is, and What It Will Ac- 
 complish. Henry George Lecture Bureau, Chicago. 
 
xxiv BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Hirsch, Max. Democracy versus Socialism. Pt. 5. The Single 
 
 Tax. Macmillan. 1901. 
 Howe, F. C. European Cities at Work. New Sources of Rev- 
 enue; the Unearned Increment Taxes, p. 189-207. 
 Howe, F. C. Privilege and Democracy in America. Scribner's. 
 
 1910. 
 Howe, F. C. Taxation of Land Values. Joseph Fels Fund. 
 Marsh, Benjamin C. Taxation of Land Values in American 
 
 Cities the Next Step in Exterminating Poverty. Author. 
 
 1911. 
 National Tax Association. Proceedings, 1907. i : 286-93. Single 
 
 Tax. C. B. Fillebrown. 
 *Ontario, Canada. Tax Reform and Direct Legislation League. 
 
 How the Farmer Pays City Taxes. 
 Post, Louis F. "Outline of Lectures on the Taxation of Land 
 
 Values. The Public. 1912. 
 Quinby, Laurie J. Sunshine Comes to Omaha. Author. 1914. 
 Rhode Island Tax Reform Association. Honest vs. Crooked 
 
 Taxes : the Woonsocket Taxpayers. 1911. 
 Ring, H. F. Case Plainly Stated. Joseph Fels Fund. 
 Shearman, Thomas G. Natural Taxation. Doubleday. 1898. 
 Shortest Road to the Single Tax. Frank Vierth. Cedar Rapids, 
 
 la. 
 Watts, George T. Single Tax. Billings, Mont. 1912. 
 
 Magazine Articles 
 
 American City. 7 : 138-9. Ag. '12. Real Estate Men and the 
 
 Single Tax. Louis F. Post. 
 American Economic League. Publicity Bulletins. Beymer Build- 
 ing. Cincinnati. 
 ♦American Magazine. 72:221-30. Je. '11. Community That Pays 
 
 Its Own Bills, Edmonton, Alberta. Albert Jay Nock. 
 ♦American Magazine. 72:335-8. Jl. '11. Why Nature's Way Is 
 
 Best. Albert Jay Nock. 
 American Magazine. 75 : 52-4. N. '12. Earning Power of the 
 
 Population. Albert Jay Nock. 
 *Arena. 10:52-8. Je. '94. Single Tax in Actual Application 
 
 (New Zealand). Hamlin Garland. 
 Arena. 21 : 51-9. Ja. '99. Ethics of the Single Tax. I. The Duty 
 
 of Christians. William Lloyd Garrison. II. The Land and 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxv 
 
 the Gospel. S. S. Craig. III. Its Breadth and Catholicity. 
 C. B. Fillebrown. 
 
 ♦Arena. 24 : 645-8. D. '00. Land Question and Economic Prog- 
 ress. Bolton Hall. 
 
 Arena. 35 : 366-72. Ap. '06. Single Tax. John Z. White. 
 
 ♦Atlantic Monthly. 112: 737-46. D. '13. Case for the Single Tax. 
 F. W. Garrison. 
 
 Century. 40: 394-403. Jl. '09. Single Tax on Land Values; Reply 
 to Mr. Atkinson. Henry George. 
 
 ♦Congressional Record. 48 : 13196. Ag. 29, '12. Tom L. Johnson 
 on Taxation of Land Values. Robert J. Bulkley. 
 
 Current Literature. 35:601. N. '03. Single Tax Community. 
 (Fairhope, Ala.) 
 
 Everybody's. 26 : 507-22. Ap. '12. Single Taxers. Frank Parker 
 Stockridge. 
 
 Forum. 52 : 165-76. Ag. '14. Abolition of Poverty. A. B. 
 Mason. 
 
 Independent. 55 : 1670-7. Jl. 16, '03. Fairhope, the Home of 
 the Single Tax and the Referendum. Ernest B. Gaston. 
 
 Joseph Fels Fund Bulletin, v. i-date. Jan. 1903-date. Cin- 
 cinnati. 
 
 ♦Kansas City Times. Mr. 13, '12. Tax System Created a 
 Fortune. 
 
 ♦Nebraska State Journal. Oct. 15, '11. What the Single Tax 
 Advocates Claim for Their Theory. 
 
 Nineteenth Century. 65 : 699-710. Ap. '09. Taxation of Land 
 Values; a Reply to Mr. Harold Cox. John Orr. 
 
 ♦Outlook. 103 : 771-5. Ap. 5, '13. Taxing Enterprise. Richard 
 Spillane. 
 
 Public, The. (Weekly), A National Journal of Fundamental 
 Democracy. Chicago. 
 
 Public. 13 : 1083-92. N. 18, '10. "Back to the Land"— the Out- 
 look. 
 
 Pubhc. 14:391-2. Ap. 28, 'II. Single Tax in Canada. Robert L. 
 Scott. 
 
 Public. 14:687-90. Jl. 21, 'II. Single Tax Substitute for the 
 Income Tax, a Speech in the United States House of 
 Representatives, January 30, 1894. Tom L. Johnson. 
 
 Public. 15 : 614-6. Je. 28, 12. Taxing Land Values — Can the 
 Tax Be Passed On? Henry George. 
 
xxvi BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Real Estate Magazine. 3: No. 6. D. '13. Single Tax from the 
 
 Single Taxer's Point of View. Charles T. Root. Frederic 
 
 Leubuscher. 
 Real Estate Magazine. 4: No. 2. F. '14. Single Tax Coming. 
 
 Joseph Pels. 
 Real Estate Magazine. 4: No. 4. '14. Single Tax without 
 
 Confiscation. Alfred Bishop Mason. 
 *St. Joseph News Press. Oct. 10, '07. Land Tax in Germany. 
 Single Tax Review. (Bi-monthly). 150 Nassau Street. New 
 
 York City. 
 Single Taxer. (Monthly.) Winnipeg, Canada. 
 Survey. 24: 605-9. Jl- 16, '10. Taxation and the Improvement 
 
 of Living Conditions in American Cities. B. C. Marsh. 
 Westminster Review. 166: 375-82. O. '06. Shall We Tax Land 
 
 Values? L. H. Berens. 
 Westminster Review. 166 : 418-22. O. '06. Economic Aspect 
 
 of a Single Tax on Land Values. Andrew Scott. 
 Westminster Review. 167:244-55. Mr. '07. "My Partners, 
 
 the People" ; An Open Letter to Mr. Andrew Carnegie^ 
 
 Arthur Withy. 
 Westminster Review. 172 : 371-5. O. '09. Progress and Poverty 
 
 John Bagot. 
 *World's Work. 21 : 13794-802. D. '10. Way Toward a Mtodel 
 
 City. Frederick C. Howe. 
 
 Negative References 
 Books and Pamphlets 
 
 Brown University vs. Dartmouth and Williams Colleges. Tax 
 on the Rental Value of Land. (Inter-collegiate Debates. 
 V. 2 p. 127-45). 
 
 Bullock, Theodore T. Some Phases of the Single Tax Contro- 
 versy; Being a Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of 
 the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts, 
 University of Nebraska, June, 1914. 
 
 Manuscript in University library. 
 
 *Falloon, George. Single Tax Explained. Land Owners' 
 Protective Association of Missouri. 1401 Waldheim Building. 
 Kansas City. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxvii 
 
 Legislative Tax Committee, Oregon. Rational Tax Reform vs. 
 
 Single Tax. 
 Mallock, William Hurrell. Property and Progress. Fenno. 
 
 1909. 
 *National Tax Association. Proceedings, 1913. 7 : 129-32. Single 
 
 Tax in Canada. Adam Shortt. 
 *Seligman, E. R. A. Essays in Taxation. Chapter III. The 
 
 Single Tax. Macmillan. 
 *Shields, Charles H. Single Tax Exposed. Ed. 6. Washington 
 
 Equal Taxation League. Seattle. 1913. 
 Silvers, E. B. Single Tax a Fallacy. Convention Publishing Co. 
 
 Kansas City. 1912. 
 
 Reviewed in The Public, July ig, 1912. 
 Smart, William. Taxation of Land Values and the Single Tax. 
 
 MacLehose. 1907. 
 
 Magazine Articles 
 
 American Economic Review. 1:643-8. S. '11. Single Tax 
 
 Movement in Oregon. F. G. Young. 
 *Atlantic Monthly. 113:27-37. Ja. '14. Case Against the Single 
 
 Tax. Alvin Saunders Johnson. 
 Catholic World. 93:289-300; 483-92. Je.-Jl. '11. Henry George 
 
 and Private Property. Ethical Arguments of Henry George 
 
 Against the Private Ownership of Land. John A. Ryan. 
 Catholic World. 96:1-18. O. '12. Methods of Reforming our 
 
 Land System. John A. Ryan. 
 Century. 40 : 386-94. JI. 'go. Single Tax upon Land. Edward 
 
 Atkinson. 
 Century. 42:722-5. S. '91. Weakness and Danger of the Single 
 
 Tax. William W. Folwell. 
 *Equity Series. I : 185-230. D. '98. Land Question from Various 
 
 Points of View. Criticism of the Single Tax. Newton M. 
 
 Taylor: Reply. Edward D. Burleigh; Memorandum. Ed- 
 ward T. Peters. 
 Forum. 3 : 433-42. Jl. '87. Henry George's Mistake About 
 
 Land. W. T. Harris. 
 Independent. 64:815-6. Ap. 9, '08. Again the Land Question. 
 Journal of Political Economy. 18:714-35. N, '10. Economics 
 
 of Henry George's "Progress and Poverty." Edgar H. 
 
 Johnson. 
 
xxviii BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Nineteenth Century. 65 : 191-205. F. '09. Taxation of Land 
 
 Values. Harold Cox. 
 Nineteenth Century. 72 : 96-109. Jl. '12. Blight of the Land 
 
 Taxes. C. Newton-Robinson. 
 North American. 137 : 147-57. Ag. '83. Henry George's Social 
 
 Fallacies. Francis A. Walker. 
 Popular Science Monthly. 36:481-600. F. '90. Agriculture and 
 
 the Single Tax. Horace White. 
 Real Estate Magazine. 4: No. i. Ja. '14. Single Tax and What 
 
 It Would Do in New York. Allan Robinson. 
 Real Estate Magazine. 4: No. 2. F. '14. Single Tax. Ralph E. 
 
 George. 
 Real Estate Magazine. 4: No. 3. Mr. '14. Merchants and the 
 
 Single Tax; a Brief of the Merchants' Association of New 
 
 York on the Herrick-Schaap Bill Halving the Tax Upon 
 
 Improvements. 
 *Survey. 31 : 697-702. Mr. 7, '14. Halving the Tax Rate on 
 
 Buildings ; the Argument in Opposition. E. R. A. Seligman. 
 
SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 SINGLE TAX 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Taxation problems are, at best, rather intricate for the 
 majority of citizens. The consideration of these problems has so 
 long been left to the discussion of the doctors and the schools 
 that the scholars have come to look upon the crude reasoning 
 of the common mind as an intrusion upon their own special field. 
 This seems to be the present attitude of economic scholarship 
 towards the popular mind as expressed in Single Tax propaganda. 
 
 Granting that the popular thought on taxation has too often 
 been directed to evasion of taxes, it would still be evidence of 
 unreasonable skepticism as to the intrinsic Tightness of human 
 nature, if one could not conclude that no just basis for the 
 distribution of the burden of taxation has yet been found, and 
 that the scholars have failed to adapt their erudition to the 
 problems of the "man in the street." 
 
 It is very recently, indeed, that political economists have 
 thought it within the proprieties to devote much attention to 
 Single Tax discussions. This explains why so much of the 
 available printed matter on Single Tax has been written by Single 
 Tax propagandists, and so little of the meager literature of oppo- 
 sition by the economists. 
 
 Meantime, the question of the adoption of the Single Tax 
 theory as a working basis of taxation has compelled the attention 
 of the average citizen in his capacity of voter in various parts 
 of our own and other countries. 
 
 The present status of the taxation problem, therefore, is 
 distinctly controversial. In considering the subject it is but right 
 to examine carefully the literature of propaganda, for it is 
 that literature that is in the hands of one's neighbor who is 
 about to vote on the adoption of the single tax. It may be sadly 
 
2 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 biased by the enthusiasm of the advocate or the antagonism of 
 the objector — but it is being read. Therefore the compiler has 
 thought it fair to reprint some of this hterature. 
 
 From a cursory, but comprehensive view of the subject, I 
 suggest to the student or the citizen who is confronted with the 
 necessity of coming to a decision concerning the adoption of a 
 Single Tax program, a careful outlining of present forms of 
 taxation and their underlying principles. Such a study would 
 develop certain axiomatic statements that would clarify the 
 thinking of most of us. 
 
 It would be established: — 
 
 1. That some' form of taxation is as necessary as it is unavoid- 
 able everywhere in the civilized world, except on Crusoe's island. 
 It is not unusual to find unthinking citizens who regard taxes as 
 an especially objectionable form of human oppression, designed 
 by the powerful, and collected chiefly from those least able to 
 pay. 
 
 2. That the promotion of the general welfare is, or should 
 be, the sole object of taxation. At the vanishing point of the 
 general welfare, and the consequent ascendancy of the private 
 welfare of favored individuals, therefore, comes the test of the 
 soundness of any tax. 
 
 3. That the best scheme of taxation is that which falls upon 
 the individuals composing society according to the ability of 
 each to pay, and to participate in the benefits of community 
 expenditures for governmental purposes. 
 
 It is by such criteria as these that the general property tax, 
 income tax, inheritance tax, poll tax, internal revenue and all 
 excise taxes, tariffs, franchise taxes, occupational taxes, and the 
 proposed Single Tax should be tested. And much wisdom is 
 required of those who apply the tests skillfully, and with fidelity 
 to the public welfare. 
 
 Edna D. Bullock. 
 September, 1914. 
 
SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 SINGLE TAX 
 
 Outlook. 68:171-6. May 18, 1901. 
 
 Rights of Man. Lyman Abbott. 
 
 At present the expenses of governments are chiefly met by 
 three forms of taxation : a tariff tax on imports, a tax on incomes, 
 and a tax on property, real and personal. 
 
 The tariff on imports is an unjust tax because it is levied, 
 not upon property nor on income, but upon expenditure. The 
 rich man calls on government for much greater protection than 
 the poor man. If he is a landlord, he has a hundred houses to 
 be protected; the poor man has but one. If he is stockholder 
 in a great railroad, he has a highway thousands of miles long 
 to be protected, while the poor man has nothing but the pathway 
 from his front door to his gate. The rich man ought therefore 
 to pay a very much larger tax than the poor man. It ought to 
 be proportioned to the value of his property, because the value 
 of his property determines, roughly speaking, the amount of 
 protection which he needs. He who has fifty millions of dollars 
 invested in mines, railroads, oil-wells, ought to pay nearly ten 
 thousand times as much taxes as the householder who has a home 
 in the village or a farm in the country worth five thousand 
 dollars. But if the tax is levied upon imports, he who has fifty 
 million dollars to protect does not pay ten thousand times more 
 taxes than he who has five thousand dollars in a homestead to be 
 protected. The millionaire wears somewhat more expensive 
 clothing, lives in a somewhat more expensive house, has some- 
 what more expensive furniture, eats somewhat more expensive 
 food ; but it is perfectly evident that he cannot, if he tries, 
 expend on himself and his family ten thousand times as much as 
 his humbler neighbor. Taxes, therefore, levied on expenditure 
 aj-e always and necessarily unjust. 
 
 The second tax is one on incomes. The income can generally 
 be ascertained only by the statement of the man who has the 
 income; an income tax, therefore, tempts every man to make 
 
4 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 false statement of his income, in order to reduce his tax. A tax 
 system which involves wholesale temptation is not a system to 
 be commended if any better one can be found. But this is not 
 all. Men who live upon salaries can state their income accu- 
 rately; men who live upon profits derived from business cannot 
 state their income accurately. It often happens that a business 
 man cannot tell in any given year whether he has made any 
 profit. He never can tell accurately how much profit he has 
 made, for he must always make allowance for the rise in value 
 of some things he has purchased and the fall in value of others, 
 and this estimate of stock in hand is rarely more than a shrewd 
 guess. An income tax, therefore, falls proportionately more 
 heavily on the man whose income is in salaries or wages than 
 on the man whose income is in profits. That is, it falls more 
 heavily on the dependent, if not on the poorer classes. But that 
 is not all. Income, again, may be derived from industry, or it 
 may be derived from investment. The investment is property 
 which the government must protect, and the protection of this 
 property requires governmental expenditure, while the protection 
 of the individual requires but little governmental expenditure, 
 and practically no more for the man who is earning a hundred 
 dollars a day than for the man who is earning one dollar a day. 
 An income tax, therefore, is, in the third place, inequable be- 
 cause it is not proportioned to the expenditure demanded of the 
 government by the persons taxed. A tax on income derived 
 from industry is a tax on industry itself, which should be the 
 last to be taxed. 
 
 The third source of government revenue is a tax upon prop- 
 erty, real and personal. If the value of all property, real and 
 personal, could be justly estimated, and the tax could be levied 
 on the property thus estimated in the proportion of its actual 
 value, the result would be a just and reasonable tax; but 
 in efl^ect this is impossible. For government is dependent upon 
 the citizen's own statement for its knowledge of the citizen's 
 personal property. It is largely dependent on his statement 
 for its estimate of the value of that property. The citizen is 
 thus brought under temptation both to conceal the possession 
 of personal property and underestimate its value, and in point 
 of fact this temptation is so considerable that personal property 
 largely escapes taxation. This escape of personal property from 
 
SINGLE TAX 5 
 
 taxation is so common, and the frauds and falsehoods into 
 which men are led by the desire to secure the same exemption 
 which their neighbors secure is so great, that the abolition of 
 all tax on personal property has been very earnestly urged by 
 both moral reformers and financial reformers in the interest 
 both of simplicity and of justice. Yet it seems difficult, if not 
 impossible, to defend on abstract principles a syste-.n of taxation 
 which levies all the expenses of government on real estate, for 
 no other reason than that real estate cannot be hidden away 
 from the assessor's inspection. Why should the man who has 
 put his industry into a house pay a tax, while the man who put 
 his industry into horses, carriages, dresses, or bank stock — 
 that is, money loaned to others — not pay a tax? The one derives 
 benefit from the government no less than the other. Justice 
 would seem to require that he should pay as well as the other. 
 
 The so-called Single Tax proposes to rid government of all 
 these perplexities by assuming as true what in the previous 
 article I have tried to show is true, that land and its contents 
 are not proper subjects of private ownership ;that the land which 
 in the Hebrew commonwealth belonged to God, and in the 
 feudal system belonged to the king, in a republic belongs to all 
 the people. It proposes to make them the landlord, and it 
 asserts that if as landlord they receive a rental which fairly 
 represents the value of the land and its contents, no one will 
 need to pay any taxes ; that if, in other words, the people come 
 by their own, they have income enough for all the expenses of 
 government, and probably some to spare. 
 
 Thus properly speaking, the Single Tax is not a tax at all. 
 It is an exemption from all taxation by means of a resumption 
 of the commonwealth by its owners, the common people. What 
 would be called a tax would really be a rental, and this rental 
 would be based, not on the idea that the man who pays it pays 
 for the protection which government affords his property; it 
 would be based on the idea that the man who pays it pays to the 
 owner of the land a rental for the land of which he is the 
 tenant. This rental would be paid, or this tax would be levied, 
 not on real estate, but on land and its contents. All that human 
 industry had done to improve the land would belong to the 
 owner — he would pay no tax on it; all the value inherent in the 
 land as God has made it, or added to the land by what the 
 
6 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 public has done for it, would belong to the public, and this 
 value the public would receive, in rental, or taxation. 
 
 Thus, let the reader imagine two plots of ground, each one 
 hundred acres in extent, side by side in a rural district where 
 wild land sells for five dollars an acre. One of them is wild. 
 No tree is felled, no plow has ever turned the virgin soil, no 
 fence has been erected. Everything is as nature made it. The 
 other is a cultivated farm, with house, barns, outhouses, orchard, 
 cultivated meadow-land. The uncultivated land is worth in the 
 market five hundred dollars; the cultivated farm would be 
 worth five thousand dollars. But for purposes of taxation each 
 would be estimated as worth five hundred dollars, and on that 
 five hundred dollars the tax or rent would be estimated, and for 
 the simple reason that the man who had built the house and the 
 barn and the outhouses, and planted the orchard, and constructed 
 the fences, would not pay any tax on this wealth, which is 
 the product of his industry. Of this the people are not the 
 owners; he is the owner. Or, again, let the reader imagine two 
 lots side by side in the center of a great city, where a lot one 
 hundred feet by fifty is worth a thousand dollars. One stands 
 vacant; on the other a ten-thousand-dollar building has been 
 erected. On each lot the same tax would be paid, or, to speak 
 more accurately, for each lot the same rent would be collected, 
 because the owner of the building would pay no rent for that 
 building, which is the product of his industry; he would pay rent 
 only for the land, which is not the product of his industry, the 
 value of which has been created partly by the God who made 
 it, partly by the entire community who live in its vicinity, and 
 who, therefore, should receive the benefit of the value which 
 their presence and activity have conferred upon it. 
 
 In a similar manner the owner of a mine — whether coal, gold, 
 copper, or iron — would pay in rent the value of the mine as 
 fairly estimated before ever a pick had been put into the hillside. 
 All the product of the industry which had opened up the mine 
 and made its treasure available would belong to him. All the 
 value of the mine as raw material, and all the increased value 
 of that mine due to the opening of railroads, the increase of 
 population, the development of civilization, would belong to 
 the State, not to the owner, because it would be the gift of God 
 enhanced by the product of the general activity of the commu- 
 
SINGLE TAX 7 
 
 nity. The value thus added by the general social conditions 
 which surround land is the "unearned increment" of which the 
 reader so often hears in the discussion of this subject. 
 
 But, as we have seen, it is not only land and its contents 
 that belong to the public. Forces of nature belong to the public 
 also. The right of the public to these forces is now recognized 
 by our patent laws, which give to the patentee a right to his 
 special use of them only for a limited term. It is quite con- 
 ceivable that these patent laws should be so modified as to 
 enable government, and perhaps any individual, to take advan- 
 tage of the patented device on paying, not whatever the patentee 
 may choose to ask for his device, but what a disinterested tri- 
 bunal may think that it is worth. Not only the forces of nature, 
 but the great franchises created by the state, belong to the state. 
 The exclusive right to run a car-track through the street of a 
 great city, the exclusive right of a railroad corporation to run 
 a railroad from New York to Buffalo, belongs primarily to the 
 people, in the one case of the city, in the other case of the state. 
 That it belongs to them is evident from the fact that the track 
 cannot be laid down in the street of the city, nor the railroad 
 built from New York to Buffalo, without special authority from 
 the people. The work which the car company or the railroad 
 corporation does is to be paid for. The fruit of their industry 
 belongs to them. But the highway of which they make use in 
 their industry belongs to the people of the city or the state, and 
 the so-called tax paid by the railroad corporation should be so 
 adjusted that the industry of muscle and of brain which has 
 produced and carried on the railroad shall receive its just 
 compensation, which should be paid to those who have con- 
 structed and are managing the railroad ; and the rental of the 
 highway, whether in the municipality or across the state, should 
 be paid to the people to whom that highway really belongs. 
 
 This rental may be charged either in the form of a tax or in 
 the form of a rental. Hitherto franchises, that is, the exclusive 
 right to use a public highway, have been given to private owners, 
 personal or corporate. Sometimes, as in the case of the Pacific 
 Railroad, not only the highway has been given, but a bonus has 
 been added in order to induce the private owner to take the 
 highway as a gift. This was always folly. The folly has been 
 now so demonstrated that to continue to give away these high- 
 
8 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 ways is scarcely less than criminal. A single case will serve 
 to illustrate the value to a city which takes possession of its 
 highway and rents it instead of giving it to a corporation. 
 
 The Boston subway has been let to the corporation which 
 operates the trolley-cars of that city for 4 7-8 per cent annually 
 on the cost. This 4 7-8 per cent meets all interest on municipal 
 bonds, and leaves a surplus sufficient to repay the entire principal 
 invested in less than forty years. The corporation which has 
 hired the subway has leased its lines to another corporation 
 which guarantees seven per cent on its common stock and eight 
 f er cent on its preferred stock. That is, in the city of Boston, 
 the corporation which operates the trolley-car system makes a 
 profit such as enables it to give satisfactory dividends to its 
 stockholders and pay the whole cost of the subway, principal and 
 interest, in less than forty years. The city of New York, 
 learning a lesson from this and other analogous experiments, 
 has now in a similar manner undertaken to build its own sub- 
 way. It will build this on money borrowed upon its bonds. It 
 has already leased this subway to a corporation on such terms 
 that at the end of the fifty years the bonds, principal and 
 interest, will have been paid. In other words, the subway will 
 belong to the municipality, though it will not have expended a 
 dollar of the people's taxes in its construction. It is clear that 
 the same principle might be applied to surface roads in town 
 and country, long or short, operated by steam or operated by 
 electricity. Whether this rent shall be paid for the highway by 
 the railroad corporation in the form of a rent or in the form of 
 a tax is immaterial. The essential fact to be noted is that, if the 
 people keep possession of the highways which belong to them, the 
 rentals therefrom would go far toward paying the expenses of 
 the government. 
 
 It does not come within the province of this article to go 
 into detailed argument with figures in support of any particular 
 scheme. My object is to give the general reader as clear and 
 coherent an account as I can, in a limited space, of the method 
 which modern thinkers have wrought out, by which the common 
 people can secure joint benefit of the common wealth, without 
 revolution. He who desires to study the philosophy of this 
 plan more fully will find material for his study in Henry 
 George's "Progress and Poverty." He who desires to estimate 
 
SINGLE TAX g 
 
 scientifically its economic effect will find material for his study 
 in Thomas G. Shearman's "Natural Taxation." He will in the 
 latter book find reasons given for the belief that a fair rental to 
 the people as landlord for the value of wild land and its con- 
 tents, and of public franchises created by and belonging to the 
 people, would be adequate to pay all the expenses of government, 
 municipal, state, and federal. He will also find there given the 
 reasons for believing that such a rental, instead of increasing the 
 burdens of the agricultural class, would decrease them ; and, 
 finally, the reasons for believing that such a rental could be 
 collected with almost absolute equity, since there would be no 
 possibihty of concealing the land or the franchise for which 
 the rent would be paid, and not much difficulty in estimating 
 their natural market value. This last, the moral argument for 
 the Single Tax, will, to him who regards ethical considerations 
 as more important than economic, appear of the first importance. 
 It is thus stated in a recent letter by Mr. Charles Francis Adams : 
 
 On this moral side, which to my mind is the most important side of 
 all, there can, so far as I see, be but one way of looking at the thing. 
 The Single Tax would be an enormous improvement over the existing 
 system, or over any other system which I think could be devised. It would 
 reduce taxation to a basis of absolute certainty and fairness, rendering 
 evasion impossible. A complete stop would thus be put to the whole system 
 of cheating, and consequent unjust transfer of a burden from those who 
 have no conscience to those who have a conscience — from those who can 
 escape the law to those who cannot escape the law — which is the unanswer- 
 able argument against the continuance of the present system — a system 
 which puts a confessed, because quite undeniable, premium on perjury; and 
 no system which puts a premium on perjury admits of justification. This 
 argument alone, to my mind, would be conclusive in favor of the Single 
 Tax. Any possible amount of wrong or injury it might incidentally inflict 
 would to my mind be little more than dust in the balance compared with 
 the advantage which would result, after the thing fairly adjusted itself, 
 from the complete freedom it would bring about from all temptation to 
 evasion and false swearing. From the moral point of view, consequently, 
 there do not seem to be any two sides to the question; and the moral 
 point of view is, in my judgment, the all-important point of view. 
 
 The question may be and has been asked. Would not the 
 carrying out of this plan amount to a confiscation of landed 
 values? Henry George concedes that it would, and defends such 
 confiscation on the ground that land is not a proper subject of 
 ownership. He compares the loss to the landowner involved in 
 the Single Tax with the loss to the slaveholder involved in 
 
10 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 emancipation. The cases do not seem to me parallel. Society 
 has no right to organize a system involving ownership of man; 
 society has a right to organize a system involving ownership in 
 land. If the community thinks the private ownership and 
 control of land is best for the community, it has a right to pro- 
 vide for such private ownership and control ; but it has no right 
 to provide for the private ownership and control of one man by 
 another, against the protest of that other, though he be but a 
 minority of one. Society having provided for the private owner- 
 ship and control of land, and individuals having invested their 
 earnings in that land on the faith of that provision of society, 
 society has no right by revolutionary act to confiscate the 
 property and destroy for the individual owner the economic 
 values which it has itself created. If, therefore, it were proposed 
 suddenly to abolish all taxes on imports, on incomes, on personal 
 and real property, and levy them all on land and its contents 
 and on franchises, the proposition would involve an industrial 
 revolution which would be at once inexpedient and unjust. But 
 no such sudden change is possible. If taxation is taken off from 
 all other objects, and levied only on those things which 
 are properly a common wealth, the change can be wrought out 
 gradually, and there will be time for industry to adjust itself 
 to the new conditions as they are created. There is very little 
 reason to believe that the practical injustice to individuals which 
 would grow out of the adoption of the Single Tax theory, in any 
 way which would be possible in America, would be so great as 
 the injury which has come to individuals through the use of 
 steam and electricity, through the influence of machinery, 
 through the organization of labor and of capital, and through the 
 consequent necessary changes in industrial conditions and in 
 values depending on those conditions. 
 
 Kansas City Star. April 7, 1912. 
 
 Tax Reform. F. W. Blackmar. 
 
 (The following article was prepared at the request of The Star.) 
 My notions of tax reforms are briefly as follows : First, that 
 there is no automatic method of taxation which would be 
 satisfactory to everybody, nor no tax svstem that would be a 
 
SINGLE TAX ii 
 
 panacea for the ills of humanity. However, it is possible to 
 make the system more just and equitable by changing our 
 methods and improving the social conscience. 
 
 The present system is inadequate to meet the demands of 
 our expanded industries. It violates the fundamental principle, 
 that the basis of taxation should be the capacity of the indi- 
 vidual to pay. It is unjust and inequitable because it permits 
 double taxation and the shifting of taxes upon people who are 
 least able to bear them. The general property tax under which 
 we are working has been practically abandoned by every other 
 civilized nation except the United States, and our present 
 changes are working to that end. 
 
 Income Tax the Most Just 
 
 The capacity of the individual to pay is measured by his 
 income, in fact, all taxes must be paid out of incomes it 
 property is to be kept intact. An income tax, therefore, is the 
 most just of all taxes. It is said to be the most difficult tax to 
 collect, but if made a fundamental part of the system instead 
 of an extra extortion, it would be found no more difficult to 
 assess and collect than any other tax. The chief objectors to 
 the income tax in the United States are men of large incomes 
 who fear it will be too just for them. The ideal tax system, and 
 the one toward which we seem to be working, is about as follows : 
 
 First — Abolish the general property tax by taking the tax off 
 improvements and personal property. 
 
 Second — Put the tax on land values. Put the tax on economic 
 rent_or the earning capacity of land which is measured by its 
 market value without improvements. In assessment, separate 
 town lots from agricultural land. Estimate the tax of the 
 former on site value and the latter on fertility, as these are the 
 two most important elements that make the market ^alue in 
 each case. Tax the unimproved land the same as improved. 
 Tax the incomes of the land shown by 6 per cent on its 
 capitalized value. 
 
 Third — Divide all other incomes into categories such as 
 salaries, public and private; manufacturers, mines and forests, 
 agencies, banks and trust companies, trading and merchandising, 
 corporations, public and private ; rental of commercial buildings, 
 incomes from securities such as notes, bonds, etc. Make sub- 
 
12 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 divisions of these so that they can be thoroughly classified. Let 
 the reports of each individual to the assessor represent the 
 specific income tfjin each category. 
 
 Justice Instead of Robbery 
 
 By improving the machinery of 'assessment the difficulties of 
 collection would be reduced to a minimum. If such a tax should 
 be generalized comparatively few people would object to it, as 
 they do the personal property tax. For example, if a man is 
 assessed on the 6 per cent $i,ooo note at the rate of 3 per cent 
 the state will take half of his income, $30. If, however, an 
 income tax of 5 per cent is put on the $60 income he will pay 
 $3.00. In the former case he will feel it a process of robbery, 
 in the latter case he will discover it is a matter of justice. If all 
 the incomes were assessed this way there would be a sufficient 
 revenue to meet the modern demands of government. 
 
 In addition to the tax on land values and incomes, there 
 should be a tax on franchises. This should be made in excess 
 of any income tax, as it is a form of rent obtained for special 
 privileges. Make the income tax on property progressive and 
 there would be no need for the inheritance tax; indeed, an 
 inheritance tax is a mild form of social robbery. It is not a 
 tax at all, for, while the property which has already met the 
 dehiands of taxation imposed by the government is passing from 
 the hands of the dead to the living, the government reaches in 
 and seizes a part of it by exercising its piratical powers. 
 
 Poll Tax "Badge of Liberty " 
 
 Excessive wealth should be reached by a graduated progres- 
 sive income tax rather than by the inheritance tax. Poll taxes 
 might be assessed as a badge of liberty. No one ought to vote 
 unless he has a sense of financial responsibility in the government. 
 
 Taxes should be taken off all business except wherein it may 
 be necessary, for police purposes, such as for the control of vice, 
 crime and social maladjustment. 
 
 In making the above statement I realize the numerous diffi- 
 culties that arise before this system can be made practical and 
 just. The income tax should be a state tax, and not a federal 
 tax, and, in order to make it successful, all states, or a large 
 
SINGLE TAX 13 
 
 majority of them at least, would be obliged to adopt the same 
 sj'Stem. 
 
 Income Tax the Foundation 
 
 The main trouble with the income tax in the past has been 
 that the tax was an independent and superfluous part of the 
 system. As presented above it is the foundation of the whole 
 system. As it is founded on justice, if persistently followed it 
 could be made practical, just and equitable. It may take a long 
 time to bring this about, but there will be no satisfactory tax 
 reform until this is accomplished. 
 
 But an ideal of this kind does not preclude many practical 
 things that may be done at present such as the separation of 
 the county and state assessments ; applying the revenue from 
 franchises for the support of the state and the revenue from local 
 taxes for local support ; the assessment of property at its full 
 value; the assessment of land separate from improvements; the 
 exemption of household furniture up to a certain limit ; the 
 development of a social consciousness which would realize that 
 the tax is a social investment which yields a large return ; the 
 development of a social conscience, which makes people glad to 
 pay, and finally an improved method of assessment conducted by 
 experienced and trained assessors, etc., etc. 
 
 Commonwealth Club of California. Transactions. 
 9: 259-88. May, 1914. 
 
 Local Option in Taxation. 
 
 Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7 
 
 Article XIII, Section 8i.'2. Any county, city and county, city or 
 town, may exempt from taxation for local purposes in whole or in part, 
 any one or more of the following classes of property: Improvements in, 
 on, or over land; shipping; household furniture; live stock; merchandise; 
 machinery; tools, farming implements; vehicles; other personal property 
 except franchises. Any ordinance or resolution of any county, city and 
 county; city or town, exempting property from taxation, as in this section 
 provided, shall be subject to a referendum vote as by law provided for 
 ordinances or resolutions. Taxes levied upon property not exempt from 
 taxation shall be uniform. 
 
14 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Report in Favor of Amendment 
 Mr. Eggleston : Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7, 
 is in form and substance an enabling act, which permits any 
 county, city and county, city or town to exempt from taxation 
 for local purposes, in whole or in part, specified classes of prop- 
 erty. These classes include all property now subject to local 
 taxation except land franchises. 
 
 The reasons for the adoption of the amendment may be sum- 
 marized as follows : 
 
 1. The present general property tax system results in great 
 inequalities of taxation between individuals owning the same kind 
 of property. 
 
 2. These inequalities are particularly acute in areas of large 
 population. 
 
 3. The remedies should be local, and dependent on the extent 
 of the abuses. 
 
 4. The subject is in an experimental stage in America, and it 
 is to the public advantage that the various localities be permitted 
 to seek for a solution in various directions. 
 
 5. As the general interests will be served by the largest pos- 
 sible production in the local units, it is correct policy to allow 
 each local unit to make such exemptions from taxation as will 
 suit its local interests. 
 
 6. The amendment is a logical extension of the home rule 
 principle already applied with such success to California cities. 
 It permits, but does not compel, the purely local problem of rais- 
 ing local revenues to be determined, as the problem of expending 
 them is determined, by the community affected. It gives each 
 community power that it may use or refrain from using as its 
 interests may determine. 
 
 OBJECTIONS MADE TO THE AMENDMENT 
 
 Objection is made that under this amendment the whole bur- 
 den of direct taxation may be placed upon land values. Such 
 would be the result if a community should make all the exemp- 
 tions permitted by the amendment. That will depend on the de- 
 sires of the people affected. Obviously, no exemption will be 
 made unless the people think it will benefit them; and if, on trial, 
 they find that any exemption does not benefit them, they will 
 withdraw the exemption. 
 
SINGLE TAX iS 
 
 If the amendment results in confining direct taxation for local 
 purposes to land values, it will be because the people in the com- 
 munity affected regard that pohcy as beneficial to them. The 
 benefits that may cause a community to 'limit taxation to land 
 values are, as far as can be seen, the following : 
 
 1. Simplicity and economy. A single subject of taxation is 
 substituted for a large number of subjects. 
 
 2. Certainty. An assessment that departs from a fair value 
 is easily detected. Two lots of merchandise, jewels, securities 
 or other personal property of equal value may vary looo per 
 cent in assessment, and no one but the owner be the wiser; but 
 any considerable variation in the assessment of two pieces- of 
 land of equal value will arouse immediate protest. 
 
 3. The value of land is, more than any other form of prop- 
 erty, the creation of the community as a whole. While other 
 forms of property acquire part of their value from the fact that 
 population makes them useful, they are the product of labor and 
 capital. Land alone acquires value from the mere presence of 
 population, vacant lots in a city being quite as valuable as those 
 on which improvements are erected. There is, therefore, a valid 
 reason for imposing upon land values a tax that is less fair in the 
 case of other forms of property. 
 
 It is said that this amendment for home rule in taxation is a 
 mere subterfuge to secure the adoption of Single Tax. But home 
 rule in taxation was adopted in western Canada before the term 
 "Single Tax" was heard of, and in western Canada, New Zealand 
 and Australia even the opponents of Single Tax do not object to 
 home rule in taxation. 
 
 It is said that the burden of proof of the necessity for and 
 justice of the measure falls upon the advocates of the amendment. 
 We accept the burden and justify the amendment because the 
 general property tax is admitted to be a failure, because it has 
 been abandoned with good results by the progressive states of 
 western Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and because the 
 predicted injurious results of home rule in taxation have not 
 obtained in any country where it has been tried. 
 
 While there is discussion in those countries as to the methods 
 of taxation adopted under home rule, there is no discussion as to 
 the principle of home rule. It is not necessary for us to disprove 
 theoretically the objections raised by the opponents, because those 
 
i6 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 objections have been disproved by the practical operation of home 
 rule in taxation in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. 
 
 The objection that, with home rule in taxation, rivalry between 
 communities will inevitably bring us all to Single Tax, is merely 
 an assertion that if any community shall exempt all property 
 except land values, it will be so benefited by the change that other 
 communities will adopt the same system in order to get the same 
 benefits. But the experience of municipalities in western Canada, 
 New Zealand and Australia shows that the objection is invalid. 
 
 Our opponents shift their ground when they say that "no ad- 
 vantage to a community can be derived from a policy of exemp- 
 tion per se." If that be true, the adoption of exemptions by one 
 community will not cause other communities to adopt those ex- 
 emptions. Our opponents contradict themselves when they assert 
 that the amendment will permit a policy that will confiscate the 
 property of large land owners, and at the same time enrich those 
 large land owners ; that it will put an additional and unjust bur- 
 den upon them, and at the same time greatly benefit them by 
 giving them tax exemptions of thousands of dollars a year; that 
 it will enrich them by favoritism and crush them with grossly 
 unjust burden. 
 
 The objection that non-residents will be injured if residents 
 of a community are permitted to adopt certain exemptions, is 
 fully answered by the fact that Americans and Europeans are 
 investing capital in western Canadian communities that exempt 
 as well as in those that tax improvements. 
 
 The objection that farmers may be injured by the operation of 
 the amendment is fully answered by the experience of rural mu- 
 nicipalities in western Canada. If California farmers do not 
 wish to take any action under the amendment, they will be free 
 to keep the present system of taxation. If they adopt a system 
 of exemptions, and find that it is not beneficial, they will be free 
 to abandon it. 
 
 EXPERIENCE OF THE IRRIG.\TION DISTRICTS 
 
 As to the effect of total exemption of personal property and 
 improvements in farming communities, vc need not go so far 
 from home as New Zealand, Australia, or even Canada. The 
 California irrigation law permits irrigation districts formed prior 
 to igog to exempt improvements from tax for irrigation purposes, 
 
SINGLE TAX 17 
 
 and does not permit taxation of personal property for irrigation 
 purposes. Thus irrigation districts formed prior to 1909 have 
 home rule in taxation. 
 
 Using that power, the districts of Modesto, Oakdale and South 
 San Joaquin have exempted improvements from tax. 
 
 While the California irrigation law gives the home rule tax 
 power, as stated above, that law is less elastic and narrower than 
 the home rule tax amendment. The law gives irrigation districts 
 no option of taxing personal property either "in whole or in part," 
 nor does it give the option of partial exemption of improvements, 
 as does the home rule tax amendment. 
 
 California has separation of state and local taxation, and that 
 system will be improved. No county, city or town has any 
 pecuniary or other interest in the public revenues raised locally by 
 any other community, and has no interest in the method of raising 
 such revenues. Therefore, no one outside of the county, city or 
 town has any right to say how such a taxing unit shall raise its 
 local revenue. 
 
 The home rule tax amendment is necessary for the rounding 
 out of our system of local self-government. As has been proved 
 where home rule in taxation exists, it is beneficial and satis- 
 factory; while our general property tax system is admittedly in- 
 jurious and unsatisfactory. 
 
 EFFECTS IN OTHER LANDS 
 
 As has been proved, also, in those countries where home rule 
 in taxation is in effect, capital for investment continues to flow 
 in, instead of flowing out. From political and industrial stand- 
 points, then, home rule in taxation has been fully justified as 
 beneficial to communities as well as to individuals. It is justified 
 in theory as well as in practice by the provincial and municipal 
 officers of western Canada. 
 
 The Minnesota Tax Commission made a personal investiga- 
 tion of the various tax systems of the four western provinces of 
 Canada, under home rule in taxation, in 1912, and reported that 
 "local option in taxation" is working well and satisfactorily. 
 
 Personal investigation by a member of this committee of tax 
 systems and tax methods in western Canada confirms the state- 
 ments of the Minnesota Commission as to the satisfactory work- 
 ing of home rule in taxation in western Canada. For example, 
 
i8 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 of the 6i urban and rural municipalities of British Columbia, 32 
 have taken no action under the home rule tax law, 26 have 
 adopted the policy of total exemptions, and 3 have adopted 
 partial exemptions. 
 
 Except for the fact that personal property is not taxed in 
 western Canada, and that municipalities are not permitted to 
 assess improvements more than 50 per cent of their value in 
 British Columbia, or more than 60 per cent in other provinces, 
 for taxation, the California home rule amendment is almost iden- 
 tical with the local option tax laws of those provinces. 
 
 Home rule in taxation has been in effect in New Zealand for 
 about twenty years, and in Australia for about fifteen years. 
 There is no taxation of personal property, but counties, cities and 
 towns, and boroughs, school districts," road districts and im- 
 provement districts may exempt improvements by vote of land 
 owners. Improvements are taxed on a 50 per cent valuation un- 
 less entirely exempt. The latest available report from New Zea- 
 land, 1910, shows that some 160 taxing districts have voted on 
 the question of total exemption, and that exemption has been 
 adopted in about 125 districts — by vote of land owners only. 
 The meager reports from Australia show that exemption has 
 been adopted in about two-thirds of the communities in which 
 votes have been taken. South Australia adopted a local option 
 or home rule tax law in December, 1913, and two elections were 
 held under the law the same month. Total exemption carried 
 in one, and failed in the other. 
 
 NO UNIFORMITY IN THE PRESENT -SYSTEM 
 
 The objection made against permitting any variation from 
 uniformity of assessment in different communities lacks force. 
 
 While our present system is called "uniform," it is not uni- 
 form. In various counties and municipalities, personal property 
 is assessed all the way from 20 to 75 per cent of its value, and 
 improvements from 40 to 75 per cent. 
 
 Assessments made in cities and towns by county and mu- 
 nicipal assessors show astonishing variations. For example, in 
 Sacramento City in 1912, the city assessor's valuation of real 
 estate exceeded that of the county assessor by $6,909,130, and his 
 valuation of improvements exceeded that of the county, assessor 
 by $2,031,840; whilg the covmtjr assessor found $134,330 more of 
 
SINGLE TAX 19 
 
 personal property than the city assessor. Each assessor operates 
 under a personal home rule tax law enacted and enforced by 
 himself. Counties and municipalities should have legal power 
 to do what assessors now do illegally and openly, by public 
 consent. 
 
 Under the home rule amendment, as under the present law, 
 the taxpayer who owns property in a dozen counties or cities 
 must have a separate tax bill from each taxing unit. No greater 
 confusion could be created by exempting in one county or city the 
 kinds of property taxed in another. The money is raised from 
 local property, and is spent for the benefit of the local community. 
 Every element of public interest is satisfied if in one community 
 each owner of the same kind of property pays an equal tax for 
 an equal value, or if all owners of certain kinds of property are 
 exempt in whole or in part under the law. 
 
 For these reasons we believe the amendment should be adopted. 
 
 Appendices to Report of IV. G. Eggleston 
 
 \\-ESTERN CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES. DATES OF ADOPTION OF COM- 
 PLETE OR PARTIAL EXEMPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 Partial 
 llunicipality. Exemption, Complete Exemption. 
 
 Edmonton 1903 when incorporated 
 
 Salmon Arm 50% until 1909 1909 
 
 Chiliwaclc Township 1S90 when incorporated 
 
 Matsqui 189.3 when incorporated 
 
 Peachland 1899 when incorporated 
 
 New Westminster..., 50% until 1911 1911 
 
 Burnaby 1896 when incorporated 
 
 Point Grey 1908 when incorporated 
 
 City of Chiliwack 1 mill for Are protection since incorporation 
 
 19?? 
 
 Victoria 507o until 1911 1911 by popular vote 
 
 Surrey 1879 when incorporated 
 
 Merritt 1902 when incorporated 
 
 Coquitlam 1909 when incorporated 
 
 Sumas 2 mills for schools since incorporation 1883 
 
 Kelowna 1909 when incorporated 
 
 Penticton Since incorporation, about 
 
 190S 
 
 Nanaimo .'■ 1878 
 
 Oak Bay 1888 when incorporated 
 
 Vancouver 1905—75%, 1910 
 
 Medicine Hat 40% until 1909 1909 
 
 Winnipeg ''0% 
 
 Regina 67% 
 
 Saskatoon 7.:i % 
 
 Moose Jaw 75% 
 
 Calgary 70% 
 
 Kamloops 70% 
 
 Sumroerland Since mcorporation 
 
20 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Partial 
 Municipality. Exemption. Complete Exemption. 
 
 Kent Sincei incorporation 
 
 Langley Since incorporation, about 
 
 1880 
 
 Mission (rural) Since incorporation 
 
 North Vancouver Since incorporation, about 
 
 1900 
 
 Prince Rupert Since incorporation, about 
 
 1907 
 
 Saanich 50% until 1912 1912 
 
 South Vancouver Since incorporation 
 
 Spallumcheen Since incorporation 
 
 Also, in 1912 about 200 small municipalities and improvement districts 
 in Saskatchewan and Alberta had adopted total exemption in the preceding 
 seven or eight years. Not one has ever abandoned total exemption after 
 having adopted it. 
 
 COMPARISONS IN PER CAPITA BUILDING EXPENDITURES 
 
 Opponents of the home rule tax amendment are preaching funeral 
 sermons over the cities of Western Canada, especially Vancouver, because 
 their building permit figures for 1913 fell below those of 1912. Totals 
 of building permits are often misleading. The proper basis of comparison 
 is the per capita of building expenditures. 
 
 We have no official census figures of California cities since 1910. 
 Therefore to give all the advantage of doubt to the opponents of the home 
 rule tax amendment, the following per capita figures of building operations 
 in Canadian cities are based on the population and building of 1913, while 
 those for the California cities are based on 1910 population and 1913 build- 
 ing operations. Obviously, that will make a better showing for the Cali- 
 fornia cities. 
 
 California Cities. Western Canadian cities. 
 
 Population 1910. Population 1913. 
 
 Building, Per Building, Per 
 
 1913. capita. 1913. capita. 
 
 Bakersfield $ 760,744 $65 New Westm'ster.$ 958,975 $79 
 
 Berkeley 2,236,700 55 Victoria 4,037,992 73 
 
 Fresno 1,776,666 71 Vancouver 10,423,197 91 
 
 Pasadena 2,787,507 92 Edmonton 9,242,450 130 
 
 Sacramento 3,416,057 76 Medicine Hat 3,857,572 241 
 
 Oakland 9,106,191 66 
 
 San Francisco, total $32,797,259 $78 per capita 
 
 San Francisco, private 21,037,264 55 per capita 
 
 Edmonton's total as above is all "private construction.'' 
 Vancouver is especially mentioned as "dead." That city abolished 
 taxes on Improvements in January, 1910. ' 
 
 Vancouver building in 1910-11-12-13. $60,376,000 
 
 Oakland, Fresno, Sacramento, Pasadena and Stock- . 
 
 ton, same years 55,286,878 
 
 Population of those California cities, 1910, -was 273,000 
 Population of Vancouver, 1913 114,000 
 
 This population of Vancouver does not include population of what is 
 called "Greater Vancouver," which is not a municipality. 
 
SINGLE TAX 21 
 
 The Vice-President: Mr. H. E. Monroe will now give you 
 the reasons why local option in the matter is not advisable. 
 
 Report Against the Amendment 
 
 Mr. Monroe: Constitutional Amendment No. 7, is the so- 
 called "Home Rule in Taxation" bill. Briefly, this is merely an 
 enabling act, giving to cities, cities and counties, and counties 
 the power, through their governing bodies, to exempt from tax- 
 ation, for local purposes, certain classes of property. The ex- 
 emptions must be made either in whole or in part according to 
 certain classifications and all property may be exempted except 
 land and franchises. 
 
 The power to make this exemption, as stated, is vested in the 
 various governing bodies, subject only to the right to a referen- 
 dum vote. That is, a temporary majority in a board of super- 
 visors, or city council, which might easily be the result of mere 
 chance, tlie matter of exemptions not being an issue at the elec- 
 tion of members, and consequently the personal views of candi- 
 dates not being known or inquired into, might fasten a system of 
 exemptions upon a community and drive those upon whom the 
 additional burdens of taxation would be cast, to fight the ordi- 
 nances by a referendum. It would seem, if such a system is ad- 
 visable at all, that such a momentous change should not be pos- 
 sible without first obtaining an affirmative vote of the electorate 
 affected. The burden of proof should be cast upon those who 
 propose the exemptions and not upon those who must pay the 
 additional burdens. 
 
 A SINGLE TAX PROPOSAL 
 
 This proposed amendment receives its chief support from the 
 Single Taxers, or Henry Georgeites, because they believe, and 
 justly as we shall show later, that its adoption would bring a 
 little nearer the day of their fondly imagined Elysium, when all 
 taxes shall be levied on land values and the entire economical 
 rent be absorbed by the state. To oppose a measure because of 
 its friends may not be scientific but it is human. At least it 
 should arouse our suspicions and command our closest scrutiny, 
 and I would say to you, if the spectre of Socialism ever troubles 
 your waking hours, or haunts your dreams, do not summon this 
 genie believing that it will be your humble servant and aid you 
 
22 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 in the collection of your revenues, but which to your sorrow 
 you will not thereafter be able to exercise. Beware of the 
 Greeks bearing gifts. The breach in the wall is not easily re- 
 paired. Socialism we know is but a relative term, but the social- 
 ism which takes from those who have merely because they have, 
 spells the failure of our civilization and ends a cycle of the 
 world's history. 
 
 But this amendment, although frankly thus supported, is now 
 defended on other grounds. Let us consider briefly some of the 
 arguments advanced: 
 
 First, which to us seems a dodging of the issue, it is contended 
 that we have only to consider now whether counties and cities are 
 to be allowed to govern themselves, not what they might do with 
 the power if granted to them ; and many supporters will be found 
 because the fight is being made not for the "Single Tax" but for 
 "home rule in taxation." 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL REGULATION 
 
 It seems obvious enough that we have not solved our problem 
 merely by stating that each locality should be allowed to regulate 
 its own affairs. We must first determine whether this is a proper 
 subject for local regulation, for evidently all matters of govern- 
 ment are not of this character. The tests which determine 
 whether a matter may properly be left to local regulation, or 
 should be governed by general laws, would seem to be these : 
 
 I. A matter should not be left to local regulation which af- 
 fects, or may affect, any considerable number of people outside 
 of the locality. 2. Only those matters should be left to local 
 regulation which can be so regulated by one community without 
 a compelling force upon the action of other communities similarly 
 situated. Over and above all this, every citizen in the state owes 
 a duty to every other citizen in that state, and cannot absolve his 
 own conscience in voting for a measure which may be turned 
 into an instrument of oppression against an unfortunate minority 
 in some communities, merely because his own particular com- 
 munity may not be affected. In other words, if this proposed 
 amendment could be used as an instrument of injustice in any 
 community, as citizens of the state, we owe a duty to the minority 
 of that community to protect them from an irresponsible ma- 
 jority. It is an easy philosophy of the day that the people should 
 
SINGLE TAX 23 
 
 rule, but he who fails to recognize that a popular majority maybe 
 the worst of tyrants reads neither history nor human nature aright. 
 Applying these principles, it seems to us that this amendment 
 can not be defended merely on the ground that it is a question of 
 local regulation. The question of taxation does affect large 
 numbers of people outside of the borders of any city or county 
 and no locality can adopt locally a system of exemptions without 
 exercising a compelling force upon other communities. San 
 Francisco, for instance, has from fifty to a hundred thousand 
 people who have their legal residence in another county, yet daily 
 do business within our borders, own property here, and many pay 
 taxes here. They are vitally affected by our fiscal regulations 
 but would have no voice in determining them. 
 
 EFFECT OF EXEMPTIONS 
 
 The compelling force which would be exerted on other com- 
 munities is most apparent. An exemption of personal property 
 in San Francisco would tend to attract people here from trans- 
 bay commimities and so willy nilly, they would be compelled to 
 follow suit. Oakland would want to exempt factories and San 
 Francisco and Richmond would in self protection be obliged to 
 grant a similar exemption. Fresno, perhaps, would exempt farm 
 implements and Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin would have 
 to follow her lead ; and so it would go until all of our exemptions 
 were exhausted and we would be down to a Single Tax basis. Nor 
 would this argue anything in favor of the measure. A system 
 of exemptions by a single community might prove profitable to 
 that community as a whole, but any such temporary advantage 
 would soon be nullified by the actions of other communities and 
 the net result of the competitive bidding would simply be that all 
 of our exemptions would be exhausted and we would be on a 
 Single Tax basis. 
 
 In passing, we may note, that another force would drag us 
 toward the Single Tax goal. Guns are made to shoot with and 
 the right to exempt is given to be used. Adopt this amendment and 
 at once a movement will be started to exempt certain classes of 
 property. One exemption obtained is used as the argument for 
 the next. Exemptions are popular with those exempted and as 
 the numbers of the tax payers constantly decrease by successive 
 exemptions their power of resistance would correspondingly di- 
 
24 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 minish, and before no great time we would find ourselves squarely 
 upon a Single Tax basis. These two forces would operate in this 
 manner, under local regulation, whereas an entire state, owing 
 to the greater uniformity of its electorate, could not be induced 
 to adopt this system. 
 
 ADDING TO THE BURDEN OF THE HONEST 
 
 As a revenue measure the adoption of this amendment is urged 
 because of the inequalities of the present system, which to us 
 seems an astonishing bit of reasoning. Let us premise, prelimin- 
 arily, that exemptions are bought at the cost of extra burdens on 
 others. This argument, then amounts to this; personal property 
 quite largely escapes taxation, which places an extra burden 
 on the honest owner of personal property, or on the owner of 
 personal property which cannot escape the assessor. Now in 
 order to do justice to this class of honest or unfortunate owners 
 of personal property, it is proposed to do what? Not to seri- 
 ously tackle the problem of making the dishonest pay, but to ex- 
 empt him altogether — to exempt the honest and the unfortunate 
 and to place all of this additional burden on the owner of real 
 estate, whose burdens, as well as those of the honest owner of 
 personal property, have already been augmented by the dereUc- 
 tion of the rascals who won't pay. Isn't this a rather crude speci- 
 men of justice? It reminds one of Mark Twain's willingness to 
 sacrifice all of his wife's relatives on the altar of his country.- 
 
 Our opponents attempt to answer this by advancing as one of 
 their arguments in favor of the Single Tax what they are pleased 
 to say is "the certainty with which a tax on land is diffused so 
 that the burden is distributed fairly throughout the community," 
 but, this is exactly what does not happen. Taxes on land stay 
 where they are put. Taxes on improvements, at least of urban 
 property, are largely shifted but those on land values are not. 
 It is impossible to follow here the argument to show this. We 
 can only refer you to any standard writer on the subject for these 
 arguments. Professor Seligman in his work "The Shifting and 
 Incidence of Taxation" as to the tax on agricultural land at page 
 27s says : 
 
 "We may, therefore, sum up the discussion by stating that 
 under actual conditions the tax on agricultural land is but rarely 
 shifted to the consumer, and that, where tenant farmers are 
 
SINGLE TAX 25 
 
 found, the tax is borne by either the owner or the tenant, accord- 
 ing to the changing conditions of agricultural prosperity. Even, 
 however, where the tax tends to be borne by the owner, the effect 
 of the tax may be injurious to the tenant." 
 
 As to urban real-estate at page 286 he says: 
 
 "With these three minor exceptions then it may be stated that 
 a tax on the site, whether it be levied on rental value or on capital 
 value is borne by the owner of the land." 
 
 If these conclusions are correct, it follows then that a Single 
 Tax on land values would transfer the entire burden of govern- 
 ment upon the shoulders of one class, the land owners. Is not 
 the mere statement of any such monstrous injustice sufficient 
 to make us recoil from a measure which would make such a re- 
 sult possible — which would unquestionably tend toward it, and 
 which is confessedly proposed with that end in view? 
 
 It is not our purpose, however, to discuss the Single Tax from 
 the Henry George standpoint. We have no fear of this as a di- 
 rect issue. We are concerned with it, only so far as this proposed 
 amendment, if adopted, unwittingly tends toward it. This amend- 
 ment can never carry as a Single Tax measure; if carried, it must 
 be by the votes of those who mistake it as a revenue measure ; it 
 must be by the votes of those who favor Single Tax, not as an 
 appropriation of economic rent but as a desirable method of rais- 
 ing our revenue, or by those who believe that the exemptions of 
 certain classes of property, or the levying of our taxes upon land 
 values alone will in some mysterious way add to our prosperity. 
 Let us analyze these claims. 
 
 EFFECTS OF THE SINGLE TAX IN CANADA 
 
 In the first place we are assured that this plan has worked 
 wonders in the Northwest. Vancouver is cited -as an illustration 
 of what this beneficent system will do. All of the prosperity of 
 this wonderful city was due to the Single Tax, but let us see how 
 the account stands. From $13,150,365 in 1910, the building per- 
 mits bounded up to $17,652,642 in 1911, and $19,388,322 in 1912. 
 This was attributed to the magic of Single Tax. Vancouver still 
 has its Single Tax, yet in 1913, the building permits fell to 
 $10,424,447, nearly one-half. The permits for December 1912 
 were $1,530,365 and for December 1913, $175,245. The aggregate 
 for the year was nearly cut in two, while the aggregate for the 
 
26 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 last month of the year was one-eighth of what it was for the 
 same period of the preceding year. On the other hand in Winni- 
 peg, where this system is not in force, the building permits for 
 eleven months of the year 1913 amounted to $18,000,000 as against 
 $15,106,450 for the entire year 1910. For these figures we are in- 
 debted to Mr. F. C. Wade, K. C. We have not the figures at 
 hand for other cities in the northwest but we understand that 
 they would show similar results. We would not for a moment 
 attribute all this vast shrinkage of the evidences of prosperity 
 in Vancouver to its fiscal system — but we believe that we have 
 heard the last for some time of the wonderful success of the 
 Single Tax in Vancouver. So much for laboratory tests. Let us 
 now do a little figuring on our own account. 
 
 In the first place, we want to observe that a Single Tax on land 
 values, benefits the rich man at the expense of the poorer. Mr. 
 Wade again has given us the figures for Vancouver. He gives 
 us the exemptions on different classes of buildings erected from 
 January to October 1913, and shows that out of the total ex- 
 emptions for that period of $9,988,440 the poor man's total 
 exemption would be $529,753. That is, that about seventeen- 
 eighteenths of the exemption was in favor of the wealthier class, 
 and one-eighteenth in favor of those not so well provided for. 
 We will give you some startling figures for our city later. 
 
 EFFECTS OF SHIFTING THE BURDEN 
 
 Our second proposition is that the Single Tax would throw an 
 additional burden upon the agricultural community. The per- 
 centage of value of land to that of improvements outside of cities 
 and towns is greater than that within cities and towns, conse- 
 quently the country must carry a larger burden if the land alone 
 is taxed. 
 
 While we do not any longer collect state taxes directly, and 
 thus this is no longer a state problem, the old problem still exists 
 in all of the interior counties, especially in those which contain 
 any considerable towns or cities. We append hereto some figures 
 we have collected from a few counties. These show that in 
 Fresno county the farmers now pay 696/10 per cent of the tax; 
 under the Single Tax would pay 778/10 per cent. In Stanislaus 
 county they now pay 81 per cent ; would pay 89 per cent. Even 
 in Madera county, where there are no considerable towns, the 
 
SINGLE TAX 27 
 
 farmers now pay 91 per cent of the county tax and would under 
 the Single Tax pay 95 per cent. 
 
 In San Joaquin county the farmers now pay 59 6/10 per cent 
 of the county tax and would under this beneficent system have to 
 pay 71 7/10 per cent. All of these figures include personal prop- 
 erty taxes. 
 
 These figures, staggering as they are, give only averages. The 
 individual increases of burdens cannot be arrived at. It is safe 
 to postulate, however, that the poorer the farm the larger the 
 percentage of land value to improvements and personal property, 
 so the poorer the farm the larger the percentage of increased 
 burden by this system. 
 
 CLASS PREJUDICE AND DISCONTENT 
 
 Our third proposition is that the Single Tax would create class 
 prejudices and foster discontent. 
 
 The burden of taxes, as we have shown, would fall upon one 
 class, but the amount of the tax would depend upon the votes of 
 those who bore no part of the burden and who would clearly out- 
 number the tax payers, a condition which would soon engender 
 the bitterest of class feeling. The farmers, as a rule, today, feel 
 that they receive no adequate return for the money which they 
 pay for the support of government. The man of property be- 
 lieves that the laboring classes are uniting with the "reformers'' 
 to despoil him, while the laboring man believes that he is being 
 deprived of what rightfully belongs to him. Social problems are 
 crowding upon us thick and fast, and any augmentation of this 
 class feeling makes the problem of government just so much more 
 difficult. 
 
 The fourth proposition is that the Single Tax would favor the 
 rich man at the expense of the poorer. We have already seen 
 from the figures which we have cited from Vancouver how the 
 exemption of improvements works to the interests of the rich. 
 The same would be true as to the large manufacturer. A certain 
 amount of ground space of course is requisite for every manu- 
 facturing plant. The large capitalists, with their great resources 
 could build many storied factory buildings and would pay no 
 more taxes than their poorer rivals, who were compelled to 
 content themselves with modest one or two story buildings. 
 Thus this aid which we wish to give to manufacturing enter- 
 
28 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 prises, would only tend to drive the small man out of business 
 and to hasten the division of society into two classes, the rich 
 employers and the poor employees. 
 
 FURTHERING CONGESTION IN CITIES 
 
 Finally, the Single Tax would aggravate the congestion of our 
 cities. This would happen in two ways; because a city could not 
 extend its boundaries and because the tendency would be toward 
 the maximum amount of improvements in the area actually 
 improved. 
 
 A city could not extend its boundaries because the outlying 
 sections, being long in land and short in improvements, would 
 never agree to become part and to pay the burdens of a city, which 
 was long in improvements and short on land. 
 
 That the tendency would be toward the maximum improve- 
 ment and consequent congestion would seem almost self evident. 
 Such has been the admitted tendency in Vancouver and a little 
 reflection will show us that it must be true everywhere. The 
 higher priced the land, and consequently, the higher the 
 taxes, the greater the incentive for improvement. And the 
 higher the building, the smaller the tax will be on the invest- 
 ment. Now it is a strange sociological fact that higher rent per 
 floor space is obtainable, even in tenement houses occupied by 
 the poorest classes, at the crowded centers, than can be realized 
 in the outskirts of the city. Conditions being equal today so 
 far as taxes are considered, the outlying regions can not com- 
 pete with down town property. A ten story apartment house in 
 the Sunset district, with the ground donated, would be a hope- 
 less enterprise, while the same building on lower Sutter street, 
 upon an expensive lot, would net its owner a handsome income. 
 With Single Tax, the same conditixins of equality would exist, 
 and capital would go into buildings where the demand existed. 
 
 On the other hand there would be no cheapening of rents. 
 Upon our assumption that all personal property would be exempt 
 from taxation, as well as improvements, there would be no ob- 
 ject in putting capital into buildings to escape taxation. It would 
 only be so invested, when it could realize a higher profit there than 
 elsewhere and that would be determined by the demand as at 
 the present time. If there were any tendency otherwise this 
 would tend to increase the cost of land at the centers where as 
 
SINGLE TAX 29 
 
 we have seen the demand is, and this in its turn would tend 
 to check further building and thus equilibrium would be 
 established. 
 
 NO CHECK ON SPECULATION IN LAND 
 
 But it is urged owners would build in order to realize an in- 
 come from their property rather than pay the increased tax. 
 This would not be true for very simple reasons. 
 
 It is obvious that all the vacant land in the city could not 
 be improved at once. No matter what our system of taxation, 
 our sand-dunes and hills must await demand and capital before 
 they will be improved. An additional reason why this would not 
 happen is that the additional tax is at once capitalized, the loss 
 at once falls on the holder and thereafter the land can be held for 
 speculative purposes upon the same terms of expectancy of profit 
 as before. Let us illustrate : Take a thousand dollars as the unit. 
 According to our system this would be taxed at say $600 and the 
 taxes at present rate, $2.20 would be $13.20. If the entire tax 
 were raised from the land the rate to raise our present revenue 
 would have to be $3.81. The taxes on the lot then would be 
 $22.86 or $9.66 more than at present. Now to yield this amount a 
 year would require $161 and that much would at once be shaved 
 off the value of the lot. It would suffer a further loss, however, 
 because as it increased in value the taxes would increase, so your 
 purchaser would make a further reduction in the price, say $250 
 all told. Now the tax having been capitalized at $750 with the 
 additional tax, the lot is as good a speculation as it was at the old 
 rate at $1000. And of course it would be immaterial whether the 
 lot were sold or the old owner continued his speculation on the 
 new basis. This capitalization of the tax is another force which 
 would operate to prevent cheaper rents. Most buildings are 
 erected in whole or in part on borrowed capital and the banks will 
 not lend more than the value of the lot. The thousand dollar unit 
 which we have assumed allows for a thousand dollars worth 
 of building but when this unit is cut to $750 our building suffers a 
 similar cut, so that a 25 per cent smaller building is erected, thus 
 to that extent cutting down the supply. 
 
 LOCAL EFFECTS OF EXEMPTION 
 
 As a practical illustration of how these laws would work out, 
 we have collected some figures from our own tax roll [Table 
 
30 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Table I, Showing How Single Tax ]Vould Affect San Francisco 
 
 Property. Compiled from, 1913 Tax Roll, as Appendix to 
 
 Report of H. E. Monroe. 
 
 Value Gained 
 
 Value of Tax or lost 
 
 of ira- Pres- under by 
 
 Description of real prove- ent Single Single 
 
 property. estate, ments. tax. Tax. Tax. 
 
 Crocker Building $606,630 $610,000 $24,566.00 $19,302.00 *$5,264.00 
 
 Chronicle Building 495,000 300,000 17,490.00 18,859.00 tl,369.00 
 
 Examiner Building 413,230 390,000 17,671.00 15,743.00 •1,928.00 
 
 Mills Building 372,550 850,000 26,896.00 14,194.00*12,702.00 
 
 Balance Montgomery 
 St., frontage same 
 block. 
 
 A. B. McCreery 92,500 17,000 2,409,00 3,519.25 tl,110.25 
 
 M. A. DeLaveaga.. 38,270 8,000 1,017.94 1,458.09 t440.15 
 Virginia Vanderbilt 66,940 1,472.68 2,550.41 11,077.73 
 
 Keystone Apartments. 19,060 135,000 3,389.32 726.19 *2,663.13 
 
 Adjoining properties. 
 
 Joseph Magnin 4,800 105.60 182.88 t77.28 
 
 John H. C. Prien.. 4,000 6,500 231.00 152.40 •78.60 
 
 Lafayette Apartments. 10,780 24,000 765.16 410.72 *354.44 
 
 (N. C. Goodwin, 
 Jr.) 
 Ad.iacent and con- 
 tiguous properties. 
 
 T.A.Williams 25,500 9,000 759.00 971.55 t212.55 
 
 Thos. C. Van Ness. 4,500 2,800 160.60 171.45 tlO.85 
 
 J. G. Woods 22,880 6,400 644.16 871.73 t227.57 
 
 Bliz. M. Hudson 5,390 1,700 155.98 205.36 149.38 
 
 Block bounded by Jack- 
 son, Scott, Pierce and. 
 
 Pacific 210,600 101,300 6,861.00 8,024.00 tl, 163.00 
 
 Block bounded by Mis- 
 sion, Valencia, 21st 
 
 and 22d 286,290 145,380 9,497.00 10,908.00 tl,411.00 
 
 Block bounded by Cal- 
 ifornia, Clement, 7th 
 
 and 8th 93,630 83,950 3,907.00 3,567.00 t340.00 
 
 Block bounded by Lin- 
 coln Way, Irving, 
 18th and 19th Aves.. 52,970 20,390 1,614.00 2,018.00 t404.00 
 
 * Denotes gain. t Denotes loss. 
 
 The local tax in San Francisco, 1913, was $2.20 on the $100 assessed 
 value. To raise the same revenue by a Single Tax on land values would 
 require a tax rate of $3.81. Any property owner may therefore reckon his 
 gain or loss under such a system by comparing his last tax bill with the 
 bill as it would be if personal property and improvements had been ex- 
 empted and a rate of $3.81 imposed on the assessed value of his land. 
 
 1, above.] We see how beautifully the rich man is taken 
 care of when we find that under a Single Tax the owner of the 
 Examiner building would save $2527 a year ; of the Crocker build- 
 ing $5250. Mr. Ogden Mills would profit on the Mills building to 
 extent of $12,702. Capitalized at 6 per cent a nice little present 
 of over $200,000 would be made to him by "this poor man's law.'' 
 
SINGLE TAX 
 
 31 
 
 Table II, Shozving Increased Burden on Country Property under 
 Single Tax in Illustrative Counties. Compiled from 
 Tax Roll. 
 
 1913 
 
 
 
 Value of 
 
 Value 
 
 Value of Value of 
 
 
 Value of 
 
 city Im- 
 
 other 
 
 country country 
 
 
 city 
 
 prove- 
 
 city 
 
 real improve- 
 
 County. 
 
 real estate. 
 
 ments. 
 
 property. 
 
 estate. ments. 
 
 Stanislaus. . 
 
 . $2,014,945 
 
 $1,985,340 
 
 $1,046,770 
 
 $16,356,760 $3,172,935 
 
 Madera 
 
 472,810 
 
 352,785 
 
 221,150 
 
 9,612,535 630,290 
 
 Fresno 
 
 . 12,871,950 
 
 7,577,540 
 
 3,272,989 
 
 45,201,890 8,120,865 
 
 San Joaquin 
 
 . 9,565,520 
 
 8,713,415 
 
 4,388,209 
 
 26,733,450 4,207,758 
 Coun- 
 
 Coun- try's 
 try's per- 
 per- cent- 
 
 
 Value of 
 
 
 Total 
 
 Total of cent- age 
 
 
 all other 
 
 Total 
 
 value 
 
 country age of under 
 
 
 county -^ 
 
 alue city 
 
 country 
 
 assess- tax Single 
 
 County. 
 
 property, property. 
 
 property. 
 
 ments. now. tax. 
 
 Stanislaus. . 
 
 .$2,680,760 % 
 
 5,047,045 $22,210,455 i 
 
 f27,357,500 81 % 89 % 
 
 Madera 
 
 . 1,156,890 
 
 1,046,745 
 
 11,399,715 
 
 12,446,460 91.7% 95.3% 
 
 Fresno 
 
 . 1,026,858 
 
 23,722,479 
 
 54,349,013 
 
 78,072,092 69.6% 77.8% 
 
 San Joaquin. 
 
 , 2,607,330 
 
 22,667,150 
 
 33,548,535 
 
 56,215,685 59.7% 73.6% 
 
 In this instance some of the people who "would make this present 
 would be his neighbors in the same block. Mr. McCreery, the 
 owner of the Western Union building, would pay an additional 
 $1,110.25 a year, while the Title Insurance building adjoining it 
 would pay $440.15 a year more as its contribution toward the 
 Mills benefactions. 
 
 Out in the residence district we find that Nat Goodwin with 
 his Lafayette apartments would have $354.44 additional, while 
 his neighbors in their modest homes would pay respectively 
 $10.85, $49-38, $212.55 and $227.50 more per year. 
 
 Of all figures collected the most instructive are those of the 
 Keystone apartments on Hyde and Washington streets. This 
 property now pays $3389.32; it would pay $726.19, a nice little sav- 
 ing of $2,663.13. 
 
 And I would ask you single taxers is that the type of buildings 
 to which you wish to condemn us — that and the crowded tene- 
 ment house? Why have you made a fetich of brick and stones? 
 Must the vacant spots all be covered with them? Does the 
 humble home no longer appeal to you? Must you penalize the 
 man who would beautify our city by planting his shrubs and 
 trees and flowers ? It is said that in New York City there are 
 children who have never seen the sun rising in his majesty, nor 
 looked upon it setting in its glory. Brick and mortar — these 
 
32 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 are their prison walls^and shall we adopt a policy which hastens 
 the day of such a fate for our little ones? And shall we be- 
 cause forsooth dishonest men avoid paying their just share of 
 the government's burdens, just as the thief steals the honest 
 man's purse — because forsooth, a Single Tax would be easy to 
 collect — shall we enter upon a policy of spoliation and con- 
 fiscation? 
 
 Action by the Meeting 
 
 The Vice-President: The time is up for discussion of this 
 particular amendment, and I will now call for a vote. All in 
 favor of what is known as the home rule constitutional amend- 
 ment, will signify it by a show of hands. 
 
 32 voted for and 24 against the proposed amendment.* 
 
 World Almanac. 
 
 The Single Tax. 
 
 The following statement of the Single Tax principle was writ- 
 ten by Henry George, Sr. . 
 
 We assert as our fundamental principle the self-evident truth 
 enunciated in the Declaration of American Independence, that 
 all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with 
 certain inalienable rights. We hold that all men are equally 
 entitled to the use and enjoyment of what God has created and 
 of what is gained by the general growth and improvement of 
 the community of which they are a part. Therefore, no one 
 should be permitted to hold natural opportunities without a fair 
 return to all for any special privilege thus accorded to him, and 
 that that value which the growth and improvement of the com- 
 munity attaches to land should be taken for the use of the com- 
 munity ; that each is entitled to all that his labor produces ; there- 
 fore, no tax should be levied on the products of labor. 
 
 To carry out these principles, we are in favor of raising all 
 public revenues for national, state, county, and municipal pur- 
 poses by a Single Tax upon land values, irrespective of improve- 
 
 * There were 89 members and guests present. Club members at this 
 date, 1,274. 
 
SINGLE TAX 33 
 
 ments, and all the obligations of all forms of direct and indirect 
 taxation. 
 
 Since in all our states we now levy some tax on the value of 
 land, the Single Tax can be instituted by the simple and easy way 
 of abolishing, one after another, all other taxes now levied and 
 commensurately increasing the tax on land values until we draw 
 upon that one source for all expenses of government, the rev- 
 enue being divided between local governments, state government, 
 and the general government, as the revenue from direct tax is 
 now divided between the local and state governments, or by a 
 direct assessment being made by the general government upon the 
 states and paid by them from revenues collected in this manner. 
 The Single Tax we propose is not a tax on land, and therefore 
 would not fall on the use of land and become a tax on labor. 
 
 It is a tax not on land, but on the value of land. Then it 
 would not fall on all land, but only on valuable land, and on that 
 not in proportion to the use made of it, but in proportion to its 
 value — the premium which the user of land m.ust pay to the 
 owner, either in purchase money or rent, for permission to use 
 valuable land. It would thus be a tax not on the use and improve- 
 ment of land, but on the ownership of land, taking what would 
 otherwise go to the owner as owner, and not as user. 
 
 In assessments under the single tax all values created by in- 
 dividual use or improvement ■ would be excluded, and the only 
 value taken into consideration would be the value attaching to 
 the bare land by reason of neighborhood, etc., to be determined 
 by impartial periodical assessments. Thus the farmer would have 
 no more taxes to pay than the speculator who held a similar 
 piece of land idle, and the man who, on a. city lot, erected a 
 valuable building would be taxed no more than the man who 
 held a similar lot vacant. The Single Tax, in short, would call 
 upon men to contribute to the public revenues not in proportion 
 to what they produce or accumulate, but in proportion to the 
 value of the natural opportunities they hold. It would compel 
 them to pay just as much for holding land idle as for putting 
 it to its fullest use. The Single Tax, therefore, would — 
 
 1st. Take the weight of taxation off the agricultural dis- 
 tricts, where land has little or no value irrespective of improve- 
 ments, and put it on towns and cities, where bare land rises 
 to a value of millions of dollars per acre. 
 
34 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 2d. Dispense with a multiplicity of taxes and a horde of 
 tax-gatherers, simplify government, and greatly reduce its cost. 
 
 3d. Do away with the fraud, corruption, and gross inequality 
 inseparable from our present methods of taxation, which allow 
 the rich to escape while they grind the poor. Land cannot be 
 hid or carried off, and its value can be ascertained with greater 
 ease and certainty than any other. 
 
 4th. Give us with all the world as perfect freedom of trade 
 as now exists between the states of the Union, thus enabling 
 our people to share through free exchanges in all the advantages 
 which nature has given to other countries, or which the peculiar 
 skill of other peoples has enabled them to attain. It would 
 destroy the trusts, monopolies, and corruptions which are the 
 outgrowths of the tariff. It would do away with the fines and 
 penalties now levied on any one who improves a farm, erects a 
 house, builds a machine, or in any way adds to the general stock 
 of wealth. It would leave every one free to apply labor or ex- 
 pend capital in production or exchange without fine or restric- 
 tion, and would leave to each the full product of his exertion. 
 
 Sth. It would, on the other hand, by taking for public use 
 that value which attaches to land by reason of the- growth and 
 improvement of the community, make the holding of land un- 
 profitable to the mere owner and profitable only to the user. It 
 would thus make it impossible for speculators and monopolists 
 to hold natural opportunities unused or only half used, and would 
 throw open to labor the illimitable field of employment which 
 the earth offers to man. It would thus solve the labor problem, 
 do away with involuntary poverty, raise wages in all occupa- 
 tions to the full earnings of labor, make overproduction im- 
 possible, until all human wants are satisfied, render labor-saving 
 inventions a blessing to all, and cause such an enormous produc- 
 tion and such an equitable distribution of wealth as would give 
 to all comfort, leisure, and participation in the advantages of an 
 advancing civilization, in securing to each individual equal right 
 to the use of the earth. It is also a proper function of society 
 to maintain and control all public ways for the transportation 
 of persons and property, and the transmission of intelligence ; 
 and also to maintain and control all public ways in cities for 
 furnishing water, gas, and all other things that necessarily re- 
 quire the use of such common ways. 
 
SINGLE TAX 35 
 
 Public. 14:392-3- April 28, 1911. 
 
 Single Tax in New South Wales. A. G. Huie. 
 
 The second general election for aldermen under the local 
 government Act* held on the 28th of January, might be supposed 
 to have been affected by the almost universal adoption of placing 
 local taxation entirely on land values. In fact, however, in a 
 vast majority of places this question was not an issue in any 
 sense. It is generally recognized now as the right thing to raise 
 local revenue from the unimproved value of the land alone. 
 Our task, then, was comparatively easy. We had only to pay 
 attention to a few places where full advantage has not yet been 
 taken of the law. 
 
 At Prospect and Sherwood the three worst opponents of this 
 policy were defeated. Also at Lane Cove, a doubtful place which 
 had for three years challenged the energies of our local friends 
 to back up friendly aldermen in the Council. At Woollahra an 
 alderman who recently proposed taxes on improvement values, 
 was defeated, and a land value taxer elected in his stead. In 
 various other places old opponents were rejected. 
 
 The place that has given us most trouble is North Sydney. 
 It is the largest municipality outside the city, in the state. The 
 aldermen were an intensely conservative lot. They hated the 
 new Act. Like all conservatives, they believed in a borrowing 
 policy, and (outside the city) had the largest debt in the state. 
 Some of the most vicious examples of land monopoly in the 
 metropolitan area are in North Sydney, and the aldermen ap- 
 peared to think that it was their bounden duty to nurse them. 
 In 1908 they decided to levy entirely on unimproved values at 
 syid. in the pound, but they made it clear that they were against 
 the principle. They really wished to impose an "additional 
 general rate" on improved values, but feared the referendum poll. 
 
 Now it is well known that cunning lawyers may find a loop- 
 hole in the best of laws. Our Local Government Act was no 
 exception to that general rule. The aldermen found that under 
 it they could impose a "loan" rate for the payment of interest 
 and the repayment of principal without a referendum vote. So 
 in 1909, instead of again imposing the syid. rate on land values, 
 they reduced it to 2^d. and imposed a loan rate of o.3Sd. on 
 
 * See The Public, volume xiii, page 1085. 
 
36 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 improved values. We made a protest, but having no power to 
 demand a referendum, were helpless. 
 
 In igio the rates were put at 2^d. for land values and 0.33d. 
 for improvement values. I tried to rouse the local people but 
 failed. It is a hard place to work. But as the time for election 
 drew on I issued two leaflets and held a number of open-air 
 meetings. The effect was good. The aldermen against us were 
 reduced from 11 to 4, to 8 to 7 in our favor. But a majority 
 of one was too narrow, especially as one or two men on our side 
 were rather doubtful. One of them was absent when the ques- 
 tion of imposing the tax came on. Then one of the other side 
 came round to our view, saying he was convinced that the people 
 wanted rating on land values only; but one on our side deserted, 
 giving a bogus reason for doing so. That made the voting 
 equal, and the Mayor gave his casting vote in favor of taxing im- 
 provements. If the absent man returns in time and votes 
 straight it may be possible to prevent the rate being confirmed, 
 but this is doubtful. 
 
 Our agitation has had the effect here of reducing the rate on 
 improvement values. The rates for 1911 are 3^d. in the pound 
 on unimproved values and ^d. in the pound on improved values. 
 
 We are certain to win in the long run even in North 
 Sydney. 
 
 The municipalities and shires of New South Wales that raise 
 local revenues from the taxation of land values — all that I am 
 yet able to give figures for, and it is not a picked list — number 
 46. Their rates vary from half a penny to 5^ pence in the 
 pound of capital value. In one (Redfern), the rate is S^ ; in 
 two, it is s; in four, it is 4^; in five, it is 4; in sixteen, it is 
 3; in ten, it is 2; in five, it is l. The- list comprises thickly popu- 
 lated suburban districts, country towns, and sparsely populated 
 rural districts, which we call "shires." There are five municipali- 
 ties that levy local taxes on "improved values," meaning the 
 value of land and improvements taken together — "real estate" 
 taxation as I understand you would call it in the United States. 
 
 So you see that almost all local taxation in New South 
 Wales is entirely on land values, except the "City" portion of 
 the metropolis. And this was one of the main factors in start- 
 ing a great building boom over three years ago, of which there is 
 no sign of slackening. 
 
SINGLE TAX 37 
 
 The procedure adopted by a council in imposing local taxa- 
 tion is simple. First of all the aldermen consider the estimates 
 for the year. They then consider how the money is to be raised. 
 Thereupon the Town Clerk advertises the result, which must be 
 confirmed within a month. Notices are then sent to landowners 
 to pay. Following is an exact copy of one of these advertise- 
 ments, published in the Daily Telegraph, February 14, 191 1 : 
 
 MUNICIPALITY OF RANDWICK. 
 
 Estimates for the financial year ending December 31st, 191 1, under Section 
 142 of the Local Government Act of 1906-7-8. 
 
 Notice is hereby given that at a duly constituted meeting of the Council 
 of the above Municipality held on Februray 7, 19 11, the following estimates 
 were submitted to the Council in pursuance of the above Act, and duly 
 approved, viz. : 
 
 Amount of proposed expenditure out of the General Fund, to 
 
 be carried £ 28,548 
 
 Amount in hand available for such expenditure I73 
 
 Amount of other revenue likely to be available . 6,153 
 
 Amount required to be raised by the rate for such expendi- 
 ture (net) 22,222 
 
 The total unimproved capital value of the Municipality is 1,364,518 
 
 It is proposed to raise the required amount by making and levying a 
 general rate of 4d. in the £ on the unimproved capital value of all rateable 
 land within the Municipality. 
 
 Ernest H. Strachan, Town Clerk. 
 Town Hall, Randwick, Feb. 13, 1911. 
 
 ■When a Council wishes to levy other rates, the procedure is 
 similar, but it has also to set out clearly that a poll may be 
 demanded except in the case of a "loan" rate, as in North 
 Sydney. 
 
 I have endeavored to describe what is being done in New 
 South Wales, so that the reader may compare it readily with 
 what is done in his own town or district. He cannot go wrong 
 in heartily supporting the New South Wales plan. 
 
 We are determined upon taxing unimproved values alone in 
 the "City" — Sydney — and to get the amendments in the local 
 Government Act necessary to finally settle the whole question of 
 local taxation for all time. 
 
 A deputation has waited upon the Minister for Public Works, 
 the Hon. Arthur Griffith, and made among others the following 
 requests (the term "rates" meaning local taxes), to which Mr. 
 Griffith responded sympathetically: ' 
 
38 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Make occupied Crown lands in the city rateable in the same way as in 
 the suburbs and country. Present occupied Crown lands in the city are 
 rateable on the rental value, but not on the unimproved value. 
 
 Make rating on unimproved values compulsory, or allow a poll in all 
 cases on the same lines as the Local Government Act provided in respect 
 of "additional general," "special," and "local" rates. At present a loan 
 rate for interest and sinking fund may be imposed on improved values 
 without a poll being allowed, as has been done in the case of North 
 Sydney. 
 
 Land occupied for railway purposes to be rateable. 
 
 No exemption or partial exemption in the case of land used for private 
 school purposes. 
 
 Effective voting for city, municipal, and shire elections. Probably there 
 is not one local council in the state that is truly representative of the 
 electors, because of the evil effects of bunching, throwing votes away, etc., 
 whereas proportional representation would enable every man to vote in a 
 straightforward way, and the result would be representative in the fullest 
 sense. 
 
 A public valuation of lands for all purposes — local, state and federal, 
 on the lines of the New Zealand Act. 
 
 Survey. 31:520, 538. January 31. 1914. 
 
 Present Status of the Single Tax Movement Here and Abroad. 
 Charles H. IngersoU. 
 
 That the Single Tax is growing apace the world over is ob- 
 vious even to casual observers. I have had exceptional facilities 
 for knowing its status in other parts of the world, and doubt if 
 such constructive progress has ever been shown as in the past 
 year. 
 
 The backbone of the Lloyd-George movement is the Single 
 Tax principle. Thq budget fight grew directly out of the inclu- 
 sion of one per cent tax on land values and the land valuation 
 clause through which this was to be effectuated. Lloyd-George 
 has now announced that he proposes to take further definite 
 steps. In England, although militancy has driven almost every- 
 thing else from the limelight, the conviction is firmer and more 
 general that the Liberal government is definitely committed to 
 progressive land value taxatidn. 
 
 In Germany the movement is organized, and, though taking 
 a form which does not meet the full approval of American single 
 taxers, i. e., the tax on increment as now suggested here in New 
 York by the mayor's commission, is perhaps for this reason a 
 
SINGLE TAX 39 
 
 stronger and more popular movement than that in any other 
 country. 
 
 In Spain, at Ronda, in May, there was held a Single Tax con- 
 ference, which not only attracted delegates from many countries, 
 but was also popularly successful, leaving in its wake a national 
 organization and an organ of the movement. 
 
 While in Berlin I received a message from one of the leaders 
 in Copenhagen that "Denmark would be the first nation of the 
 earth to write the Single Tax into national law — and that soon." 
 I found in Denmark greater general intelligence and in some re- 
 spects stronger organizations than elsewhere. 
 
 In Sweden, also, the movement is well organized, and one of 
 the indications of its strength is a daily paper in Stockholm under 
 Single Tax auspices. 
 
 Besides these countries there are nebulous agitations for the 
 Single Tax in Italy, France (where there is a Single Tax paper) 
 and Belgium. Australia and New Zealand have long been known 
 as experiment stations of the movement. The latter, especially, 
 has produced the most concrete results up to the recent develop- 
 ments in western Canada. There is good reason for believing 
 that the new government of China will adopt definite measures. 
 Dr. Sun Yat Sen is known as an advocate of the Single Tax. 
 
 Notwithstanding these facts, my opinion is that the movement 
 will hereafter make greater progress on this continent than else- 
 where, and that Canada is at present furthest advanced. Van- 
 couver has taken the final step in the removal of practically all 
 taxes from industry, i. e., buildings, personal property, etc., and 
 the most reassuring thing regarding her experience is the fact 
 that the process has covered a period of eight or ten years, 
 and four distinct stages, wherein one-quarter of such taxes 
 were removed at each step, thus proving that the theory was 
 sound and its working satisfactory. 
 
 The history and present condition of Vancouver is the best 
 commentary on the Single Tax that can be cited. Her experi- 
 ence has resulted in a general trend in Canadian cities of the 
 Northwest in the same direction. In these communities the 
 Single Tax will be found in its early and cruder stages, and with 
 uniformly satisfactory results. Furthermore, this influence is 
 being definitely felt in neighboring cities in the American North- 
 west, and is beginning to create unrest throughout this country. 
 
40 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 The way in which it works is that other cities become envious of 
 the prosperity of the Single Tax towns, and join the movement 
 in self-defense. This stage of the evolution would indicate that 
 we are winning general success. 
 
 Some Canadian and northwestern cities are advertising in the 
 United States to attract industries, boldly proclaiming the Single 
 Tax as a reason why industries thrive there. The great influx 
 of Americans to Canada, now amounting to something like 
 200,000 annually, is doubtless accelerated by the current reports 
 of Single Tax prosperity. 
 
 It is necessary to call attention to the fact that the untaxing 
 of personal property and improvements is by no means a full 
 measure of the Single Tax, and we are aware that stopping at this 
 point would not produce any, and surely not all, benefits of the 
 unlimited Single Tax. The unlimited tax would not only raise 
 all needed public revenues from land values and, if it did not 
 absorb all the value of the land, would proceed to take all re- 
 maining land values, so that all speculation in land would be 
 adequately checked. There is danger that with merely partial 
 measures land speculation would even be accelerated, so that the 
 Single Tax must not be judged by any existing exemplifications 
 of its beginnings, favorable as are the present results. 
 
 In the United States there are a dozen healthy but more or 
 less sporadic political movements directed toward the Single Tax. 
 These are in Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, 
 California, Oregon, Washington, Louisiana and other states. 
 Some are being promoted definitely by the Joseph Pels Fund 
 which has been disbursing from $50,000 to $100,000 for several 
 years in this work. But to my mind the strength of the move- 
 ment is indicated by the fact that it appears in many respects 
 most healthy where unpromoted. 
 
 In California, for example, in 1912 150,000 votes were cast 
 in certain counties for a tax measure intended to open the way 
 to the Single Tax, and this in a movement but a few months old. 
 Everett, Wash., carried a complete abolition of taxes except on 
 land by a two-thirds vote. Forty per cent of the votes in St. 
 Louis and Kansas City were cast for Single Tax measures, and 
 one-third of the voters in the three largest counties in Oregon 
 voted Single Tax. Altogether, nearly 400,000 voters in Oregon, 
 Missouri, California and Wisconsin declared for Single Tax. 
 
SINGLE TAX 41 
 
 Seattle elected a Single Tax mayor, and a Single Tax measure 
 was defeated by only a small majority. Another campaign is under 
 way. 
 
 Herbert S. Bigelow, one of the oldest and most prominent 
 single taxers in the country planned and carried through the new 
 Ohio constitution, although a specific inhibition of the Single 
 Tax was made a part of it. This "victory'' Bigelow did not 
 strenuously contest. A similar inhibition is now being sought 
 by the frightened interests of Oregon and Missouri. These, 
 though negative, are strong evidences of the imminence of the 
 Single Tax, as in each of these three states the initiative and 
 referendum, promoted always by Single Taxers, has been made a 
 part of the fundamental law. Through these measures inhibi- 
 tions are as easily removed as affirmative laws are secured. 
 
 The 1913 elections contributed heavily to publicity, and in 
 some cases more substantially. In Pueblo a contested campaign 
 was conducted for 50 per cent exemption of improvements the 
 first year, and 99 per cent thereafter; carried 2,711 to 2,171 
 against ; Commissioner Burton, Single Taxer, re-elected though 
 bitterly opposed ; so general was interest, in the state, that move- 
 ments are already under way in other cities there. In Houston, 
 Tex., J. J. Pastoriza was re-elected, and his program of exempt- 
 ing improvements approved by the voters after several years 
 of practical experience. 
 
 In New York, Benjamin C. Marsh and his organizations 
 for "halving taxes on improvements" were active factors in the 
 election of Mayor Mitchel and twenty-seven assemblymen, 
 pledged to his proposition. That the mayor's pledge was not 
 perfunctory may be concluded from the fact that he has retained 
 J. J. Murphy and Lawson Purdy in, and appointed Raymond 
 V. IngersoU to, his cabinet. All these men are Single Taxers. 
 John J. Hopper was elected register. 
 
 In New Jersey a spectacular Single Tax campaign was waged 
 by George L. Record, Edmund B. Osborne and others, to nomi- 
 nate the latter as governor, on a plank written in the Progressive 
 platform at the convention. This failed, but Colby ran third 
 on the issue, which was widely exploited all over the state for 
 months. Charles O'Connor Hennessey, single taxer, (a brother 
 of John A. Hennessey, Tammany's Nemesis), was elected to the 
 Senate, and E. Yancey Cohen, defeated for Assembly. 
 
42 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Massachusetts had a campaign similar to New Jersey's with 
 Single Tax a leading issue with the Progressives, who came in 
 second. Controversies between the candidates, on this issue, 
 obtained national publicity. 
 
 I might mention that there are at least thirty single taxers 
 in Congress, and a half-dozen governors definitely "under sus- 
 picion." The fact is that almost all statesmen in the country 
 are under similar suspicion, and Single Tax sentiment unquestion- 
 ably pervades many progressive movements. 
 
 State Single Tax leagues have been organized in several states 
 in the last year. One interesting collateral fact is the extent of 
 the agitation for better methods of appraisal; besides the general 
 adoption of separate valuation of real estate and improvements 
 and of various improved methods of real estate appraisal, such as 
 that of President Purdy, of New York. The Manufacturers Ap- 
 praisal Company of Cleveland is steadily installing the Somers 
 system in large cities throughout the country. Secretary Lane's 
 recent messages, especially concerning water powers and Alaska, 
 are full of Single Tax doctrine. The contest at the annual meeting 
 of the National Conservation Association was mainly on Single 
 Tax principles, which President Pinchot upheld successfully. 
 
 In conclusion, let me cite as further secondary evidences of 
 progress — equally as significant as the numerous events cited — 
 the fact that the three great national illustrated weeklies, the 
 Saturday Evening Post, Collier's and Harper's, are all writing 
 Single Tax editorials. The Outlook has given an extensive review 
 of the movement. More significant perhaps, is a series of articles 
 in the Real Estate Magasine, the first of which is a veritable call 
 to arms in defense of vested rights — in fact, acknowledging that 
 the Single Tax is on the way and may not be blocked without 
 arousing those whose property values would sufifer by it. The 
 Atlantic Monthly is publishing a series of debates on this subject 
 between F. W. Garrison, affirmative, and A. S. Johnson, negative. 
 The press generally is giving generously of space to this subject. 
 An exhibit of Single Tax literature is being prepared for Colum- 
 bia University by Professor Johnston, the librarian. 
 
 Altogether, single taxers are inclined to join the Real Estate 
 Magazine in the admission that the Single Tax cannot be stopped, 
 even by owners of speculative real estate. 
 
SINGLE TAX 43 
 
 Outlook. 105: 115-8. September 20, 1913. 
 Single Tax. 
 
 It is hardly an exaggeration to say that twenty-five years 
 ago the term "Single Taxer" was as odious and terrifying in 
 the rich states of the North Atlantic seaboard as the term 
 "abolitionist" was fifty years ago in the states of the South 
 Atlantic seaboard. The term "Single Tax" was invented by 
 Thomas G. Shearman, a distinguished New York lawyer, who 
 was an eminent authority on taxation. Henry George adopted 
 it to describe the method devised by him of taxing land values 
 so that the unearned increment, as he called it, shall go to the 
 community which creates it and not merely to the individuals 
 who now reap the benefit. 
 
 The Single Tax theory was first propounded by Mr. George in 
 1871 in a book called "Our Land Policy," but it received its most 
 famous exposition in "Progress and Poverty," which Mr. George 
 published in 1879. In 1882 Mr. George stumped Ireland, and 
 again in 1884 he made a three months' tour throughout Great 
 Britain, speaking in the principal cities to large audiences and 
 making a strong impression. In i8go he spent nine months in a 
 trip to Australia and a tour around the world. 
 
 What has been the progress of Mr. George's taxation doctrine 
 during the thirty-four years since the publication of "Progress 
 and Poverty"? 
 
 This question is worth answering because interest in the 
 problem of land taxes is steadily growing. In even so conserva- 
 tive a state as New York, a state in which the landowning in- 
 terests are strong and influential, there is a definite movement in 
 favor of increasing the taxes on land and decreasing them pro- 
 portionately on improvements. In New Jersey also, a rich and 
 conservative state, the mother of corporations, the two promi- 
 nent candidates for the governorship within the Progressive 
 party are both appealing for support on the ground that they 
 advocate the taking of the burden of taxation from improve- 
 ments and transferring it to land values. 
 
 Before we endeavor to answer this question it must be pointed 
 out that there is a very widespread error in the public mind 
 regarding the Single Tax. Many people, perhaps most people 
 who have not looked into the matter, consider that the Single 
 
44 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Tax means the abolition of private property in land. To impose 
 a Single Tax on land values or ground rent- means nothing of the 
 kind, although it is true that Henry George did not believe in 
 private monopoly of land as at present existing and proposed to 
 use the Single Tax as a method of abolishing it. 
 
 It is obvious that ground rent or the unearned increment can 
 be taxed at any rate per cent chosen by the taxing authority. 
 Of course, if the state takes twenty, fifty, or ninety per cent, 
 the individual has only the balance. Mr, Fillebrown, in Massa- 
 chusetts, and Messrs. Colby and Osborne, the gubernatorial can- 
 didates in New Jersey, believe that the Single Tax can be applied 
 to real estate values in the cities of Boston and Newark in 
 such a way as practically to take taxation entirely from im- 
 provements, thus fostering and developing improvements, and 
 yet leaving a reasonable share of the increasing ground rent or 
 land value or unearned increment to the private owners, 
 
 We believe it will surprise some of our readers, as it has sur- 
 prised us, to learn what the progress of the Single Tax has been 
 in the various parts of the world in the last few years. We 
 are enabled to give this record through information collected, 
 condensed, and arranged by Mr. C. B. Fillebrown, one of the 
 best-known and best-informed authorities on the so-called Single 
 Tax. 
 
 Great Britain has been the last to move, and her first step 
 was comparatively a short one. The Lloyd George Budget of 
 1909, which finally became a law in 1910, imposed four different 
 taxes upon land, the first and most important of which was the 
 so-called increment value duty. This imposes a tax of 20 per 
 cent upon land increment arising after 1909, payable by the 
 owner when land is sold, leased for more than fourteen years, 
 or transferred at death. Land held by corporate bodies and 
 not changing hands is to pay the tax every fifteen years. To 
 carry the law into effect it was necessary, of course, to provide 
 for a complete appraisal of all the land in Great Britain, in 
 order to determine its value, exclusive of improvements, in the 
 year 1909. This work, which is estimated to cost $10,000,000 
 and to require five years, is now under way, and it will result 
 in a monumental survey comparable to Doomsday Book. 
 
 In the German Empire the first of the recent experiments in 
 taxing the increment of land was made in the model German 
 
SINGLE TAX 45 
 
 colony of Kiaochau, established in China in 1897. The land and 
 tax ordinance of 1898 imposed a tax of 33^^ per cent of any in- 
 crement of value accruing thereafter to private purchasers of 
 lands acquired from the Government, a tax of 6 per cent on the 
 value of land, exclusive of improvements, and a tax on land sales 
 at auction. This ordinance suddenly and unexpectedly realized 
 the German land reformers' programme in a German colony 
 under the direct control of the Imperial Government. It naturally 
 aroused great interest, and soon led to attempts to tax the un- 
 earned increment in various German cities. Frankfort and 
 C6logne took the lead, in 1904 and 1905. Their example was 
 rapidly followed by scores of other municipalities, including most 
 of the large cities, until by 1910 the increment tax was in opera- 
 tion in 457 cities and towns and was yielding a substantial 
 revenue. The rates of taxation ranged from i per cent to 25 
 per cent of the amount of the increment. 
 
 In 191 1 the German Empire introduced an Imperial incre- 
 ment tax. This law imposes a progressive tax, increasing ac- 
 cording to the percentage which the increment bears to the 
 original value of the land. The rate is 10 per cent of the incre- 
 ment when that am_ounts to 10 per cent of the original value, and 
 increases i per cent for each additional 20 per cent of increment 
 until it reaches 19 per cent on increments ranging from 170 per 
 cent to 190 per cent. From that point it increases I per cent 
 for every additional 10 per cent of increment, until it reaches 
 30 per cent on all increments of 290 per cent and over, with 
 provision for certain deductions. The Imperial tax is intended 
 to unify the taxation of the unearned increment throughout the 
 Empire, and will replace the local increment taxes. To com- 
 pensate the cities for the revenue thus lost, the law provides 
 that 40 per cent of the product of the Imperial increment tax 
 shall be apportioned to the local governments; while the states 
 are given 10 per cent, and the Empire retains 50 per cent. Au- 
 thority is granted, however, to impose additional rates for local 
 purposes ; so that some measure of local option is retained. 
 
 In Australia Queensland has already adopted the exemption 
 of all improvements, and New South Wales, South Australia, 
 and every other state, as well as the Federal Government, are 
 moving steadily in the same direction. 
 
 New Zealand has had a graduated state land tax since 1891, 
 
46 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 which has already to a great extent accomplished its purpose of 
 breaking up large estates. In 1896 local bodies were empowered 
 to levy their rates on the unimproved value of land. By igog 
 not less than eighty-five districts had adopted the method, with 
 satisfactory results. 
 
 Of the nine Canadian provinces three have taken important 
 steps toward the Single Tax. In British Columbia provincial rev- 
 enue is still derived from poll, property, and income taxes, but 
 since- 1891 municipalities have been permitted to exempt improve- 
 ments from taxation in part or in whole. Since 1892, indeed, 
 municipalities have not been permitted to assess improvements 
 at more than 50 per cent of their actual value. Under the author- 
 ity thus granted all the important urban and many rural muni- 
 cipalities now exempt improvements entirely, thus raising practi- 
 cally all local revenue from land. The Government, through its 
 Finance Minister, the Hon. Price Ellison, now formally announces 
 its purpose to adopt the Single Tax for all provincial revenues. 
 He says : "Our aim is to reach a point where direct taxation will 
 be eliminated and our revenues will be obtained from the 
 na'tural resources of the province. This I regard as a sound 
 policy." 
 
 In the Province of Alberta there were established in 1912 
 fifty-two municipalities, which are required to levy their taxes 
 on land values only. The same is true of seventy-four villages, 
 also of forty-four out of forty-six towns. In 1912 the 
 province enacted laws, practically without opposition, requiring, 
 with two exceptions, all towns, all rural municipalities, and all 
 villages to raise their local revenues from taxes assessed upon 
 land according to its actual cash value. The five cities of 
 Alberta have special charters granting wide discretion. Edmon- 
 ton has exempted all improvements since 1904, and the others 
 are following suit. 
 
 In Saskatchewan about twenty villages confine taxation to 
 land alone. This province has just passed a new act requiring 
 all rural municipalities to raise their revenue from taxation of 
 land values exclusively, and imposing a graduated surtax, 
 beginning in 1914, upon unoccupied lands. Its main feature is 
 the imposition of a tax of $40 per section of 640 acres upon 
 land of any owner or occupant exceeding 640 acres which has 
 less than one-half its area under cultivation. 
 
SINGLE TAX 47 
 
 In Ontario 300 municipalities have petitioned for power to 
 reduce taxes on improvements. By twenty-three to one the 
 Toronto City Council, in January, 1913, submitted to the citizens 
 the question of exempting buildings, whereupon the citizens 
 voted in the affirmative four to one. 
 
 In contrast with these gradual, patient British and Colonial 
 attainments, the record of the United States for actual achieve- 
 ment is a comparative blank. This condition in the birthplace 
 and home of the great expounder himself is not easy to account 
 for. 
 
 The chief factor in the practical attitude of the two nations 
 is the difference between the English and American methods 
 of procedure. In England the voters begin at once to discuss 
 among themselves the advantages of the land tax, and straight- 
 way, by the very cohesion of a common thought, they set about 
 to get it, with, as it were, one heart and voice, by enactment of 
 land laws. In this country the voters are of a different type ; 
 they are mostly too busy to concern themselves with making 
 even their own laws. Consequently the cause has been consigned 
 to scattered organizations, which have proceeded to discuss 
 the theoretical possibilities and impossibilities and probabilities 
 of every phase of the Land Tax question, combined with other 
 questions more or less related, to the end of the catalogue. 
 
 The moral is that education and not partisan propaganda is 
 the surest path to the triumph of that economic justice which 
 alone can solve our economic problems. 
 
 Tax Reform League, Seattle. 
 
 Erickson Single Tax Amendment. 
 
 1. The Erickson Amendment does not affect state or county 
 taxes at all. It affects only city taxes. 
 
 2. It exempts from city taxes the improvements on land; 
 that is, buildings, factories, etc., and personal property — house- 
 hold goods, machinery, stocks of goods, tools, etc. 
 
 3. It taxes land values merely, whether there are buildings 
 on the land or not, and it taxes the franchises of pubUc service 
 corporations, such as the Seattle Electric Company, the Seattle 
 Lighting Company (gas company), etc. Besides, it taxes such 
 
48 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 leasehold interests in land as that given by the state on the 
 "old university grounds." 
 
 4. The assessed values of the land will not be raised or 
 lowered by the Amendment, — it affects only the rate or per- 
 centage of taxes paid; it reduces the rate (for city taxes) on 
 improvements and personal property to nothing. 
 
 The total tax rate for state, county, school and city is 30 mills, 
 or $3.00 on $100 of assessment. The part of this tax for city 
 purposes is 14 mills, or $1.40 on $100 of assessment, — almost 
 one-half. 
 
 The general effect of the Erickson Amendment, then, will 
 be to take nearly half of the total tax (for all purposes, city, 
 county, school and state) off of buildings and personal property 
 (47% is the exact amount) and this tax, of which buildings and 
 personalty are relieved, will fall on land, both vacant and im- 
 proved (and on franchises) ; the total tax for all purposes on 
 land, vacant and improved (and on franchises) will be 25% 
 higher than now. 
 
 Every man can figure for himself the change this Amend- 
 ment will make in his own tax. 
 
 I — Find out the total tax on land, and on buildings and 
 personal property, separately. 
 
 2 — Subtract one-half (47% to be exact) from the tax paid 
 on buildings and personal property. 
 
 3 — Add one-quarter to the tax on land alone, whether vacant 
 or improved. 
 
 Business Property Will Pay More. Residence Property Will 
 Pay Less. 
 
 The Erickson Amendment will shift taxes from residence 
 property to business property. Here is the proof : 
 
 BUSINESS PROPERTY 
 
 On two sides of Second Avenue, between Yesler Way and 
 Pike Street, there are 85 lots. Their total assessed values are 
 as follows : 
 
 Assessed value of land ? 9,179,250 
 
 Assessed value of buildings 2,719,690 
 
 Total $11,898,940 
 
SINGLE TAX 49 
 
 The 191 1 tax NOW makes these 85 lots with the improve- 
 ments pay $403,374 per year. Under the Erickson Amendment 
 (under which buildings would pay less and land values would 
 pay considerably more than now) these properties would pay 
 $441,894— an increase of $38,520. 
 
 The same thing is true of Third Avenue, between Yesler Way 
 and Pike Street. The present assessed values are as follows : 
 
 Assessed value of land $5,286,180 
 
 Assessed value of buildings 809,180 
 
 Total $6,095,360 
 
 The present tax paid by these properties is $206,631 ; under 
 the Erickson Amendment they would pay $242,576 — an increase 
 of $35,945- 
 
 It is important to remember that this additional sum, to be 
 paid by the landlords of business property, cannot make the 
 cost of living higher; they cannot charge more rent and thereby 
 increase prices, for the rent is now (and always is) at the 
 highest point which people can or will pay. 
 
 RESIDENCE PROPERTY 
 
 In the Moore's University Park Addition, lying north of the 
 
 University campus, a comparison of the 1911 taxes with the 
 
 Single Tax on the same property under the Erickson Amendment 
 
 is as follows : 
 
 Improved lots. Vacant lots. 
 
 1911 taxes for all purposes $6,023 $ 9,427 
 
 Under Erickson Amendment 4,297 12,029 
 
 Decrease $1,726 Increase $2,602 
 
 A total saving to the ones who have improved their property 
 
 of $1,726. The average assessed valuation of the improved lots 
 
 Ig $660 and of the houses $1,690, total $2,350. 
 
 1911 taxes for all purposes $78.00 
 
 Under Erickson Amendment 57.80 
 
 Each home-owner would save $20.20 
 GREEN LAKE 
 
 In the whole of Burns & Atkinson's Addition, located in the 
 heart of the Green Lake District on the east side of the lake, 
 the 1911 taxes compare with the Single Tax under the Erickson 
 Amendment, as follows : 
 
50 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Improved lots. Vacant lots. 
 
 1911 taxes for all purposes $5,089 $1,236 
 
 Under Brickson Amendment 4,089 1,578 
 
 Decrease $1,000 Increase $342 
 BALLARD 
 
 In Oilman Park, Ballard, Blocks i-S3 : 
 
 Improved lots. Vacant lots. 
 
 1911 taxes for all purposes $15,830 $3,679 
 
 Unfler Brickson Amendment 13,948 4,709 
 
 Decrease $1,882 Increase $1,030 
 
 Mr. C. J. Smith lives at 6539 Earl Street, N. W., Seattle. 
 In 1911 he paid $36.95 tax for state, county, school and city 
 purposes on his house and two lots — $30.23 of this was the tax 
 on his house and $6.72 was the tax on his two lots ($3.36 each). 
 If the Erickson exemption amendment (to be voted on March 
 5th, 1912) had been in force he would not have had to pay any 
 city tax on his house. The tax on his house would have been 
 reduced one-half — from $30.23 to $15.12; his lot tax would 
 have risen to $8.40 ($4.20 each) ; he would have paid, altogether, 
 $23.52 instead of $36.25 as now. 
 
 Public 14:233-4. March 10, 1911. 
 
 Taxation of Land Values in Canada. 
 
 Portions of Special Correspondence from Edmonton, published in the 
 Toronto Daily Star of October 22, 1910. 
 
 Edmonton may be called the home of the Single Tax. Though 
 the name of Edmonton has been on the map for over a: hundred 
 years, the period of its larger growth may conveniently be 
 dated from 1904, the year the city charter was granted. 
 
 In the charter the principle of the Single Tax was adopted 
 as the basis of assessment and taxation, that is, taxation on 
 land values only, with no tax on improvements; and this being 
 now the sixth year of its operation, it is of interest to inquire 
 how it works out, and how the people like it. 
 
 The Single Tax idea was modified by the addition of business 
 and income taxes, but the head of opinion here is towards tax- 
 ation of land values pure and simple, and it is probable that in 
 a few years' time the business and income taxes will be discarded. 
 
SINGLE TAX 51 
 
 The people like the system. One hears no sentiment at all in 
 favor of going back to assessment of building or improvement 
 values. It is simple and easy of administration and equitable 
 in results. It prevents, or at least tends to prevent, the holding 
 of land vacant for speculative purposes. Two pieces of land 
 equally well located, one vacant, and the other with a million 
 dollar building on it, would contribute, outside of the business 
 tax, exactly the same amount to the city funds, so that one can 
 see that the holding of land vacant or with cheap, light revenue 
 producing buildings is not apt to be a profitable venture for any 
 great length of time. Of course the recent rise in land values 
 has been so rapid and so phenomenal in extent that so trifling 
 a thing, in comparison, as taxation has hardly been given a 
 thought; but taxation necessarily keeps pace with rise in land 
 values, and in the long run it will not pay to hold on to 
 unimproved town sites. 
 
 Outside the business center it costs no more taxation to carry 
 improved, revenue-producing property than it does vacant land 
 similarly situated, and that fact alone must in the long run 
 result in a compact, well-built-up city, and it is as well a factor 
 to be taken into consideration in the purchase of outlying lands 
 in the corporation. 
 
 The corporation of Edmonton embraces now about ten 
 thousand acres. It has a total assessment of thirty millions 
 and a tax rate this year of seventeen mills on the dollar. The 
 general assessment is based on land value only, fixed by the 
 assessor. He is guided in fixing this value by recent sales, by 
 his knowledge of the property, its location, etc., and in arriving 
 at this he pays no attention to the character of the building or 
 whether it has any building on it at all or not. 
 
 The satisfaction given by the system of taxation followed in 
 Edmonton has induced other corporations to follow suit. 
 
 Strathcona, the city across the river, with SjOOO inhabitants, 
 imbedded the system into its charter. This year that city has 
 progressed so far towards the pure Single Tax as to cut its 
 business tax in half. 
 
 The City of the Plains, Regina, investigated, and adopted the 
 plan. 
 
 The biggest city of the West, the young giant of the coast, 
 Vancouver, has gone the full length, and this year adopts the 
 
S2 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Single Tax pure and simple, land values only, without business 
 tax. The result there will be watched with the widest interest. 
 It is the first to go the whole hog, and to go it on an extensive 
 scale. 
 
 Enquiries and delegations from many parts of Canada, and 
 from many parts of the United States as well, have reached 
 Edmonton on investigation bent, and the system may already 
 be said to have obtained a solid foothold in the West. 
 
 The simplicity and ease of administration of the system is 
 one of its chief beauties. It is much easier to compare and 
 equivalate assessment of land than of buildings or personal 
 property. There are practically no appeals made from assessed 
 values as such. The whole business of the Court of Revision 
 for the city is disposed of in a sitting of an hour or two 
 duration. 
 
 No doubt a good part of its success here is due to the service 
 of a competent and impartial official who deservedly gained 
 the confidence of the rate payers. To the assessor and tax 
 collector, which offices in Edmonton are combined in the person 
 of that dour yet canny Glaesca' chiel, Mr. D. M. McMillan, is 
 due much of the credit for the inauguration and successful 
 operation of the system in the city. He has perfected the 
 details so that it runs along like clockwork, and he is given 
 practically a free hand in working it out. To him and to the 
 genial mayor of the city, Mr. Robert Lee, we are indebted for 
 the particulars from which the scheme has been outlined above. 
 
 Everything is not lovely, however, not even with the Single 
 Tax. When the city takes on growing pains and demands room 
 for expansion, the outlying districts do not want to come into 
 the charmed Single Tax area. Their assessment would be 
 mostly all land values, and they claim that the parts of the city 
 where extensive improvements exist free of taxation would get 
 them the best of the bargain. They demand concessions, and 
 Edmonton had to grant their demands to coax them in. The 
 city agreed that for five years their assessment would be made 
 for school purposes only, and it will be three years yet before 
 the added area pays full taxes. 
 
 Strathcona agreed that until the farm lands were sub-divided 
 and sold they would only be assessed at $io per acre, equal 
 only to a trifling assessment of $io each for a town lot. The 
 
SINGLE TAX S3 
 
 sub-divisions of farm lands spring up all around the fringe 
 of the corporations, where land is cheap and taxation very light, 
 and residents still have the advantage of contiguity to a center 
 of population. This kind of thing occurs in every city, of 
 course, but the tendency thereto seems to be increased by the 
 Single Tax System. 
 
 Public. 15:436-8. May 10, 1912, 
 
 Typical Objections to Land Value Taxation. 
 
 Objection: The Single Tax places the financial burdens of 
 government upon producers, though all receive equal protection 
 and benefits. Answer: (i) The Single Tax exempts all producers 
 from all taxation. (2) It takes for public revenues only land 
 values, those values of land which are due not to individual 
 effort but to general conditions. (3) To the extent that those 
 values are untaxed for general use, tlie benefits of government 
 are not equal ; for land owners are thereby allowed private 
 incomes out of a common fund. 
 
 Objection: The Single Tax, when applied to the fullest extent, 
 is destructive to land values. Answer: (i) As to capitalized 
 land values (selling price), this is true; but as to annual land 
 values (ground rent), it is not true except to the degree that 
 ground rent is now abnormally high because land speculation 
 abnormally lowers the supply of land. (2) Both as to capital 
 value and annual value, the Single Tax would deprive land 
 owners of only so much land value as is due not to individual 
 effort but to general conditions — approximately to the full if fully 
 applied, and in degree if only partly applied. 
 
 Objection: In this country land values do not belong to the 
 people as a whole, because the government, which is of the 
 people, has by Constitutional laws duly conveyed the public 
 domain to individuals for a consideration. Answer: (l) No 
 government of the past may irrevocably sell in perpetuity the 
 natural heritage of future generations. (2) Our government 
 never sold the land values of the present and future; and could 
 not, for that would be in effect the sale in perpetuity of a 
 power of private taxation. (3) As the Constitutions and laws 
 under which our government sold were by their own terms 
 
54 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 amendable, any rights acquired are subject to that reservation ; 
 and when those laws and Constitutions are duly amended, all 
 transactions under them are void if the amendment so declares 
 or to the extent that it so declares. Therefore, the question 
 raised by a Single Tax amendment is not whether it would destroy 
 private ownership of land values but whether it is in the public 
 interest. Any of our Constitutions and laws which provide that 
 all property shall be taxed, may be amended without depriving 
 any one of any rights. The power of taxation is a power about 
 which all publicists are agreed that it must not be tied up. 
 
 Objection: The shifting of taxes from improvements to 
 land values would increase taxes on improved real estate where 
 the value of the building is less than the value of the land, 
 thereby lessening taxes on skyscrapers and palaces and increasing 
 them on cottages and vacant land. Answer: (i) If taxes were 
 increased on improved property where the value of the build- 
 ing was less than the value of the land, the increase would be 
 at the expense of land monopoly and to the gain of the building 
 trades. What real objection is there to this? (2) To exempt 
 palaces and skyscrapers would tend to make palaces and sky- 
 scrapers cheaper, and thereby to increase employment and stim- 
 ulate trade in building lines ; to increase advalorem taxes on 
 vacant land would tend to make all land cheaper, and thereby 
 to increase employment and stimulate trade in all lines. (3) To 
 increase taxes on cottage sites while lessening taxes on cottages 
 is quite a different thing from increasing taxes on cottages. 
 
 Objection; It would so reduce the value of vacant land as to 
 wipe out slender mortgage equities. Answer : If the tax were 
 high enough this would be true. If it were enough higher it 
 would wipe out the whole capital value of vacant land. But if 
 it did either, only land monopolists would lose while land users 
 would benefit. Since one or the other must lose, which shall 
 it be? 
 
 Objection : It would encourage intensive use of land, thus 
 increasing congestion. Answer: This objection needs explana- 
 tion in connection with the one immediately preceding. If 
 shifting taxes from the value of improvements to the value 
 of sites would reduce the value of vacant land, how could 
 it increase congestion? Do people huddle most where land is 
 cheap, or where it is dear? 
 
SINGLE .TAX 55 
 
 Objection : The expense of civil government is for the pro- 
 tection and benefit of buildings and not of vacant land. Answer : 
 How much would vacant land be worth in the real estate market 
 of any community where titles to land were not protected? 
 Little or nothing. Civil government increases the market value, 
 not of building, but of land. It must therefore be for the 
 benefit, not of buildings but of land, including vacant land. 
 Does any one honestly and seriously deny it? 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 113:545-8. April, 1914. 
 
 Third View of the Single Tax. Evans Woollen. 
 
 The Case for the Single Tax having been stated, and the 
 Case against the Single Tax, there is reason perhaps for stating 
 the Case of the Single Tax. For notwithstanding these years 
 of disputation it is not quite clear that we are all talking about 
 the same thing when we talk about the Single Tax. Indeed, 
 the term seems sometimes a hardly less slippery one than Social- 
 ism. Thus, in the December Atlantic, Mr. Garrison defines the 
 Single Tax as a method of raising money for the necessary 
 expenses of government, and then proceeds to the advocacy of a 
 project not fiscal in its primary purpose, but social. It is not a 
 method of raising money related in amount to the necessities 
 of government, that he advocates, but a method of abolishing 
 private property in land, a method whose application would indeed 
 raise money available for the expenses of government, but 
 incidentally, and in amount related to the value of the private 
 property to be abolished, and quite unrelated to the necessities 
 of government. 
 
 The abolition of private property in land is one thing. 
 Governmental appropriation of the unearned increment in land- 
 values is another. A third is the taxation of land-values. And 
 there seems not infrequently to be failure to discriminate the 
 one from the other, and the third from the first two. All three 
 were involved in Henry George's propaganda. The end he 
 sought was the abolition of private property in land. Govern- 
 mental appropriation of the unearned increment, appropriation 
 in the name of taxation, was the means. He attracted to his 
 standard — 
 
S6 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 1. Those who, with himself, favored a tax that would take 
 the whole rental value of land and thus abolish private property 
 therein. 
 
 2. Those who, not favoring the abolition of private property 
 in land, yet believed with John Stuart Mill that the state should 
 appropriate the future increment in land-values which is said 
 to be unearned. And 
 
 3. Those who, favoring neither the abolition nor the appro- 
 priation, yet believed that land independent of improvements 
 thereon or therein should bear a larger burden of taxation. 
 
 And thus three things have been confounded, and the term 
 Single-Taxers has come to include those who believe in any 
 of the three. 
 
 Toward the first of these, the abolition of private property 
 in land, this world of ours that takes little stock in doctrines of 
 natural rights has made no appreciable progress since George's 
 time. No advocate of commanding influence has appeared 
 since the desertion of Herbert Spencer, and the interest in the 
 subject remains academic rather than political. 
 
 Such progress as has been made under the name of the 
 Single Tax has been toward the second of the three things 
 confounded, — the governmental appropriation of the unearned 
 increment in land-values, a social project for ameliorating the 
 evils of, without abolishing, private property in land; and 
 toward the third, — the increased taxation of land-values, a 
 fiscal project for raising money for the necessary expenses of 
 government. 
 
 It was the second that engaged Mill and his Land-Tenure- 
 Reform Association. They sought to ameliorate the evils of 
 private ownership through "the interception," to use the language 
 of the association's platform, "by taxation of the future un- 
 earned increase of the rent of land (so far as the same can be 
 ascertained), or a great part of that increase.'' By the rent of 
 land they meant, of course, economic rent, that rent which 
 is a remuneration for the use of what Ricardo called "the 
 original and indestructible powers of the soil." They proposed 
 to take the unearned increment by using the taxing machinery. 
 It might be taken otherwise. They proposed to distribute the 
 unearned increment by using it, in lieu of taxes, for the 
 expenses of government. It might be distributed otherwise. 
 
SINGLE TAX 57 
 
 These two matters of method should not be allowed to confuse 
 the consideration of the merits of the appropriation of unearned 
 increment. 
 
 Confusion has arisen, too, from overlooking the fact that 
 unearned increment does not mean an increment in value un- 
 earned by any one. It means an increment not attributable to 
 the owner or his predecessors in the title. That there is in 
 this sense an unearned increment in land-values is not questioned. 
 Indeed, any increment in land-value will be found, as George 
 says, to have "social growth as its basis. ... A man may 
 work or spend on land to any amount; but no matter how 
 valuable his improvements, the land itself acquires no value 
 except as the community around it grows and improves, or 
 access to larger populations is opened." Would it not be right 
 to appropriate this increment to the use of those who have 
 earned it? Would it not be right to appropriate the increment 
 in the Duke of Bedford's Covent Garden estate,-^that estate 
 which was worth some thirty dollars a year when it came to 
 his family and was worth one hundred and twenty thousand 
 dollars a year when, afraid it is said of what Lloyd George 
 might do, he recently sold it for fifteen millions? Undoubtedly, 
 the appropriation of all increments to the use of those who 
 have earned them would be rightful. But many things are 
 rightful enough that are neither practicable nor expedient. 
 And the world seems quite to have made up its mind that the 
 comprehensive and theoretically correct appropriation and 
 distribution of unearned increments is one of these. 
 
 It is impracticable because the comprehensive and theoreti- 
 cally correct appropriation of unearned increments would have 
 to be regardful not only of land-values but also of all the other 
 monopolies in which unearned increments are likely to show 
 themselves ; and, as others have pointed out, would have to 
 be regardful of unearned decrements as well as of unearned 
 increments. 
 
 And the distribution — what of that? Who have earned and 
 are accordingly entitled to these increments which the owners 
 have not earned? What share has the parasite earned and 
 what share the community-builder? To use the appropriated 
 increments in lieu of taxes is not of course to answer the 
 question. 
 
S8 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 It is inexpedient to appropriate unearned increments com- 
 prehensively because, as Professor Johnson pointed out in the 
 January Atlantic, the chance of the unearned increment is a 
 motive that we could not well do wholly without. The chance 
 of getting more than is allowed by the stern logic of the 
 theorist has started and finished much good work. 
 
 But, while this work-a-day world is not showing much 
 interest in the appropriation and distribution of unearned 
 increments in anything like a comprehensive and theoretically 
 correct way, it is, in its blundering fashion, showing interest in 
 some compromises on the subject. It was with reference to 
 these that I said above that progress had been made, under 
 the name of the Single Tax, toward governmental appropria- 
 tion of the unearned increment. 
 
 The compromises referred to are the British and German 
 increment taxes mentioned by Mr. Garrison, and described in 
 the 1913 edition of Professor Seligman's Essays in Taxation. 
 The British increment tax is one of the four land-taxes of 
 1909. A fifth of the increment in the site-value, above a non- 
 taxable increment of ten per centum, is taken by the government 
 when the land changes hands or, in the case of land not 
 changing hands, every fifteen years. This legislation followed 
 interesting increment taxes in the German Colony of Kiauchau 
 in 1898, and in a great many of the German municipalities. 
 The latter were supplanted in 1911 by an imperial increment 
 tax. This tax is levied on the difference between the selling 
 price of real estate and the purchase price plus the cost of 
 improvements. The rate varies in accordance with the ratio 
 of the increment to the purchase price : the minimum being a 
 tenth of increments of not more than ten per centum, and the 
 maximum three tenths of increments of two hundred and 
 ninety per centum and more. 
 
 About these increment taxes of the British and the Germans 
 two facts are to be noted : there is no purpose to abolish 
 private property in land, and there is no appropriation beyond 
 a portion of the future increment. In view of these facts one 
 may question the justification for Mr. Garrison's statement 
 that the Lloyd George budget recognizes the principle of the 
 Single Tax. Neither the increment tax nor any other part of 
 that budget is a recognition of the principle that land should 
 
SINGLE TAX 59 
 
 not be held privately, and that is the principle of the Single 
 Tax as advocated by Henry George. Rather, as Professor 
 Seligman has said, the Lloyd George budget is not td be re- 
 garded as a triumph for the Single-Taxers. It accepts indeed 
 a small part of the single-tax reasoning, but it refuses to be 
 bound by its narrow limitations. 
 
 What the British increment tax does recognize is the right- 
 fulness of the appropriation of future unearned increments, 
 and both the practicability and the expediency of the appropria- 
 tion in a limited way, to the end that the evils of private 
 property in land be ameliorated. And to bringing about the 
 use of the taxing machinery for the accomplishment of this 
 social project, the Single-Taxers have contributed largely. 
 
 They have contributed largely also to bringing about the 
 third of the three things confounded, the fiscal project of 
 increasing the taxation of land-values. They have done this in 
 two ways : by helping to overcome the prejudices and inertia 
 that have supported our all but universal general-property tax, 
 and by helping to estabUsh the principle on which the increased 
 taxation of land-values rests. 
 
 The general-property tax, of which it has been said that "a 
 cruder instrumentality of taxation has rarely been devised," 
 has been under attack in this country ever since the notable 
 report made in 1871 by David A. Wells as New York Tax 
 Commissioner. During that period there has come to be quite 
 general acceptance by authorities in fiscal science of the ability 
 criterion : acceptance, that is, of the principle that taxes should 
 be levied proportionately to the ability to pay them. Tested by 
 this criterion, the general-property tax is condemned both as 
 to its theory and as to its administration. It is condemned 
 because its theory takes no account of earning ability which 
 in turn obviously measures tax-paying ability. Its theory takes 
 no account of the industrial captain's earning ability, but 
 takes full account of the teamster's mule. It is condemned 
 because its administration "sins against the cardinal rules of 
 uniformity and universality," and because it stimulates the 
 iniquities of tax-dodging. 
 
 With the abandonment or modification of this discredited 
 general-property tax, that is, of its personalty and land-improve- 
 ment elements, there should undoubtedly come, as the Single- 
 
6o SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Taxers urge, increased taxation of land-values. Such taxation 
 rests on the principle that a tax on the monopoly element of 
 the tax-payer's income, that part of his income which has been 
 paid to him for a monopoly appropriated by him, is to be pre- 
 ferred to a tax on the competitive element of his income. A 
 tax on the monopoly element cannot be shifted; its incidence 
 can be reckoned on ; whereas the final incidence of taxes on 
 the competitive element, and the total of their injustice, cannot 
 be reckoned on. Furthermore, a tax on the monopoly element 
 costs the community less, in that it does not interfere with the 
 free action of capital and the increase of the general fund from 
 which taxes must be paid and the community maintained. 
 
 In so far as this principle of taxing the monopoly element 
 has been accepted,. progress has been made toward the increased 
 taxation of land-values because of all monopolies the most 
 important is land. But the railroads, the street railways, the 
 water-works, the ability to labor more effectively than wage- 
 earners who gain a bare subsistence — these too are monopolies; 
 And the single tax toward which the Single-Taxers have been 
 helping is really a single tax not on land but on monopoly, of 
 which, as I have said, land is the most important part. 
 
 It is under this third head, the taxation of land-values, not 
 under the head either of the abolition of private property in 
 land or of the appropriation of unearned increment, that the 
 taxes cited by Mr. Garrison as evidence of single-tax progress 
 in Australia, Western Canada, Pennsylvania, should be assembled. 
 They are evidence of the progress, not of Henry George's 
 social project or of Mill's, but of a movement toward better 
 fiscal legislation, toward taxation more regardful of social 
 considerations ; and in this movement the Single-Taxers, so- 
 called, — but in large measure inappropriately so-called, — are 
 helping importantly. 
 
AFFIRMATIVE DISCUSSION 
 
 Arena. 24: 645-8. December, 1900. 
 
 Land Question and Economic Progress. Bolton Hall. 
 
 Q. Mr. Hall, as one who has made a study of the single 
 tax, do you believe that it would prove an efficient remedy for 
 reducing uninvited poverty to a minimum? 
 
 A. Henry George says that, by taking the rental value of 
 land for the public, "the great cause of the present unequal 
 distribution of wealth would be destroyed, and that one-sided 
 competition would cease which now deprives men who possess 
 nothing but power to labor of the benefits of advancing civiliza- 
 tion, and forces wages to a minimum, no matter what the 
 increase of wealth. Labor [each man for himself, or oftener 
 in combinations], free to the natural elements of production, 
 would no. longer be incapable of employing itself, and com- 
 petition, acting as fully and freely between employers as be- 
 tween employed, would carry wages up to what is truly their 
 natural rate — the full value of the produce of labor — and keep 
 them there." 
 
 Q. What do you think of the influence that it would have 
 ethically on society? 
 
 A. Ethical progress must be the progress of the race. The 
 progress of the race needs opportunity for development, and the 
 first requirement for this is the use of the resources of Nature. 
 Denial of this use perverts our whole social system, and all 
 share in the perversion, which makes fellowship impossible: 
 since we are all either receivers of rent of land — that is, 
 thieves — or payers of rent of land — that is, abettors of thieves. 
 Equal use of the land would enable us to live for one another 
 instead of on one another. 
 
 Q. What do you think in regard to the contention that the 
 taxation of land values only would favor the accumulation of 
 
62 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 wealth on the part of those who hold bonded securities and 
 prove oppressive to the land holders or owners? 
 
 A. We think that justice would "favor the accumulation 
 of one's own wealth," if any one cared to accumulate what he 
 could get at will. " 'Bondholders,' however," says Louis F. 
 Post, "are, in the main, themselves the landowners ; for a bond 
 is usually the first title to some interest in land, such as a rail- 
 road franchise. It could not, therefore, both favor and oppress 
 them. Further, it could not be oppressive to landowners — 
 that is, to owners of a special privilege — to charge them the 
 value of what they get, even though it would prevent their 
 accumulation of other people's wealth." 
 
 Q. Why do' you believe it is a fundamental remedy? 
 
 A. As is said in "Things as They Are" : "The reform, then, 
 of our present land 'system' is not the end of reforms nor the 
 sum of reforms. It is, as its great teacher has said, the gate- 
 way of reform. More than that, it is the one reform without 
 which all others will be self-destructive, because they tend to 
 increase either population or production, and thereby to in- 
 crease rent, and so to foster every form of monopoly." 
 
 Q. Many farmers oppose the single tax, as they think it 
 would be oppressive to them. In other words, they hold that 
 their land would be more heavily taxed than all these taxes 
 put together amount to at present, while the holder of bank 
 stock and other securities would be practically exempt .from 
 taxation. Do you think their position is well taken? 
 
 A. When it is remembered that some land in cities is worth 
 twelve millions of dollars an acre; that a small building lot in 
 the business center of even a small village is worth more than 
 a whole field of the best farming land in the neighborhood; 
 that a few acres of coal or iron is worth more than great groups 
 of farms; that the right of way of a railroad company through 
 a thickly-settled district or between important points is worth 
 more than its rolling stock; that the value of workingmen's 
 cottages in the suburbs is trifling in comparison with the value 
 of city residence sites — the absurdity, if not the dishonesty, of 
 the plea that the single tax would discriminate against farmers 
 and small home owners and in favor of the rich is evident. 
 The bad faith of this plea is emphasized when we consider 
 that under existing systems of taxation the farmer and the 
 
SINGLE TAX 63 
 
 poor home owner are compelled to pay in taxes on improve- 
 ments, food, clothing, and other objects of consumption much 
 more than the full annual value of their bare land. 
 
 World's Work. 21: 13795-6. December, 1910. 
 
 Way Toward The Model City. Frederic C. Howe. 
 
 Germany has set the pace in city-building, as in many other 
 reforms. It is the only country in the world that has treated 
 the subject as a science. Germany designs its cities as the 
 World's Fairs at Chicago or St. Louis were designed by land- 
 scape artists and architects. They are planned from the bottom 
 up. And the thing in most striking contrast with our own cities 
 is the power which the German municipality enjoys over the 
 land within its limits. During the summer of 1909 I visited 
 a number of the leading cities of Germany and found that 
 many officials insisted, with no feeling of apology, that the 
 city must own all of the land within its limits. Only by owner- 
 ship, it was said, could the housing problem be solved; only in 
 this way could parks, streets, boulevards, and planning projects 
 be carried out and industrial development be made to harmonize 
 with the ideals of what these experts felt that the modern city 
 could be made. In pursuance of this policy the German city 
 approaches the land question in three ways, all of which are 
 novel. First, by ownership. A surprising number of cities own 
 not only parks and open spaces, but great wooded estates outside 
 of the city, which are used for pleasure as well as for profit. 
 They are worked as forest preserves. A large part of the 
 building area within the city is owned as well. Some idea of 
 the holdings of the cities can be got from the accompanying 
 diagrams. 
 
 Some cities are also active speculators in city and suburban 
 land. They make a business of buying and selling for profit. 
 Diisseldorf, for instance, a city of 300,000, has set side a fund of 
 $5,500,000 for the purpose of land-speculation. 
 
 The city controls the land-owner and land-speculator in 
 yet another way. Only a part of the site may be built upon. 
 The percentage differs according to the section of the city. 
 In the business centres the owner may use as much as 60 per 
 
64 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 cent. ; in the outskirts, only 35 per cent. Buildings, too, are 
 limited in height, the usual provision being that they shall not 
 exceed the width of the street. Similar restraints are imposed 
 on factory owners, who are confined to certain sections of the 
 outlying territory, usually to that side of the town which is 
 away from the prevailing winds. Thus the land-speculator, 
 owner, builder, and manufacturer are compelled to use their 
 land so that it will not be offensive to neighboring owners or 
 in any way prejudicial to the harmonious planning of the city 
 as laid out by the city council. The city and the comfort of 
 its citizens are the primary considerations. 
 
 The German Tax on Land-V allies 
 
 The third contribution which Germany has made to the 
 subject of city planning — and a contribution which has swept 
 over Europe into Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, and Switzer- 
 land — is a system of local taxation which discourages the 
 land-speculator and gives to the city a new and constantly- 
 increasing revenue. Autocratic Germany, ruled as it is by the 
 reactionary three-class system of voting, which places the cities 
 in the hands of the large tax-payers, is the last country in the 
 world where we should expect the teachings of Henry George 
 to take root and be applied. And the Germans deny that they 
 have adopted the single-tax idea in taxing the "unearned incre- 
 ment," just as they deny that there is anything socialistic in 
 the state-ownership of mines and railroads or the city-ownership 
 of docks, street railways, gas, and many kinds of enterprises 
 which in this country are in private hands. Still Germany does 
 tax the "unearned increment" of land. 
 
 "Of course we do not like to pay any more taxes," a 
 prominent manufacturer in one of the German cities said to 
 me; "but we cannot very well object to the taxation of increas- 
 ing land-values, for of course the city creates them; they would 
 not exist were it not for the people and the industry; they do 
 not really belong to the owners, and in all justice the city 
 ought to take at least a part of what it has created." Under 
 the new tax the land is appraised every fifteen or twenty years, 
 and any increase in value is subject to a tax. In case of sale the 
 profits realized are subject to the same sort of taxation. The seller 
 is compelled to give up a portion of the gains which have 
 
SINGLE TAX 65 
 
 been created by the growth of the city, the opening of new 
 territory, the development of transit to the suburbs, or any of 
 the thousand influences which add to the value of city land. 
 Unimproved land is taxed more heavily than that which is 
 improved, while the percentage taken by the city increases with 
 the profit realized by the owner. It ranges from i to 33 per 
 cent, of the net profits. 
 
 This experiment, which had its beginning in Frankfort less 
 than ten years ago, has spread to nearly all of the cities of 
 Germany. It inspired the budget of Great Britain in 1909, which 
 the great land-owners in the House of Lords rejected. And 
 it is of especial interest to America, where every innovation in 
 taxation is viewed with suspicion, because the German city is 
 administered by experts, by men trained in the universities and 
 in the technical schools and by years of experience in city 
 matters ; and the officials are chosen, not by a democratic ballot, 
 but by the business men and the large tax-payers who (under 
 the Prussian three-class system of voting) are absolutely in 
 control of the politics of the cities. Moreover, we have the 
 best sort of machinery for applying the German system, for we 
 already levy a large part of our taxes upon land; and, as we 
 revalue our real estate periodically (often every year), we can 
 easily ascertain the increase in values with accuracy. 
 
 Land-Taxation and City-Planning. 
 
 What has the taxation of land-values to do with city- 
 planning and the housing question? How will it promote the 
 city beautiful or aid in the realization of the ambitious plans 
 which our cities are beginning to project? Has municipal tax- 
 ation anything to do with the price of land? Can taxation be 
 adjusted to promote a social policy as well as defray the 
 increasing needs of the community? 
 
 I spent some years as secretary of the Tax Conference of 
 Pennsylvania and recently served on the Board of Real-Estate 
 Appraisers of the city of Cleveland, Ohio. And I have become 
 convinced that the taxation of land-values is not only just but 
 it is the easiest and most fundamental of all means for the cure 
 of the housing question and the proper building and planning 
 of cities. By the taxation of land-values I mean the taxation 
 of the site or speculative value in land, and not land itself. In 
 
66 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 other words, that all of the local revenues should be taken from 
 ground or land rents, just as is now commonly done by private 
 individuals under the ground-rent system which prevails uni- 
 versally in Baltimore and in the business centres of our large 
 cities. This would be brought about by a very simple law 
 which exempted houses, buildings, improvements and personal 
 property from taxation. Then local taxes would fall auto- 
 matically on the land alone. 
 
 There is no difficulty about ascertaining the real value of 
 land, as was for a long time assumed. As a matter of fact, it 
 is the easiest thing in the world to do. New York City has 
 since 1903 separated its valuations of land and improvements. 
 Boston has done the same thing for a much longer period. The 
 tax board of Cleveland perfected an organization, trained its 
 experts, and completed the assessments of all land as well 
 as all the buildings within the city in six months' time; and 
 did it more justly, more easily, and more economically than I 
 thought possible. And the land valuation was made with the 
 minimum of complaint and protest. It met with almost 
 universal approval. 
 
 Is this suggestion just? Is it fair to tax only one kind of 
 property — land? I fancy the apparent injustice of the proposal 
 delays this reform more than any other cause. And yet the 
 taxation of land-values alone is the most just of all systems of 
 taxation. It is merely taking that which has been created by 
 society. The 4,000 million dollars of land-values in New York 
 City, equal to two-thirds of the cost of the Civil War, is due 
 to the growth and development of the city. It was not created 
 by the thrift, enterprise, or ability of the owners, or by any 
 service which they render to society. So far as they are 
 concerned, the colossal value is an unearned increment. It is 
 due wholly to the growth of population and the progress of 
 society. And the tax suggested involves merely the taking by 
 the community of that which the community has created. 
 
 No Other City Revenue Required 
 
 Is such a. tax adequate? Can we abandon all other forms 
 of revenue? As a matter of fact the ground-rents (not including 
 building-rents) of our cities are colossal. They far exceed 
 every possible need of the most extravagant community. They 
 
SINGLE TAX 67 
 
 would more than pay all of the local needs. -In New York 
 City, the real estate is valued every year. During the four 
 years from 1904 to 1908 the value of the land, exclusive of 
 improvements, increased from $3,057,161,290 to $3,843,165,597. 
 In four years' time the speculative increase alone amounted to 
 $786,004,307, or nearly $200,000,000 a year. The increase is 
 fairly normal from year to year and reflects the birth-rate and 
 the growth of population. During these four years the total 
 expenditures of the city amounted to about $160,000,000 a year; 
 or $40,000,000 less than the speculative increase in the value of 
 the land. 
 
 With perfect safety New York could declare : "We will levy 
 no taxes on real estate or personal property in 191 1; we will 
 abandon all revenues from licenses, from the excise taxes and 
 all other form of revenue, and will content ourselves with the 
 increase in value which takes place in the land. From this 
 source, which is our creation, we will run the city and relieve 
 all property and business from taxation." Under such a pro- 
 posal, which would take not a penny of anything which exists 
 to-day, the city could be operated and in addition enjoy a surplus 
 which would build a subway every year equal to the first one 
 constructed from the Battery to Harlem, and at no cost to the 
 people of the city. The German statisticians estimate that land- 
 values in a growing city increase at the rate of about 4 per 
 cent, a year, which would be somewhat less than the increase 
 above indicated. 
 
 New York City is not exceptional. Similar investigations 
 and assessments in Boston, Washington, San Francisco, and else- 
 where show that the speculative increase in the value of the 
 land amounts to more than the annual expenditures of these 
 cities. 
 
 But even were land-values stationary, the present ground- 
 rents far exceed the city's needs. In New York the land-rent 
 (not including building-rents) enjoyed by ground landlords 
 amounts to approximately $200,000,000 a year. This is arrived 
 at by assuming that the total assessed value of $3,843,i6S,S97 has 
 this value by reason of a fair return in interest, which, figured 
 at S per cent., amounts to $192,158,279. This, too, is after the 
 city has taken in taxation at least $50,000,000 from these total 
 rentals : so that the total fund available for taxation is approxi- 
 
68 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 mately $2So,o(30,cioo, or nearly $100,000,000 more than the present 
 local budget. 
 
 Were the city to abandon all other forms and sources of 
 revenue and tax only land-values, the distribution of ground- 
 rent would be as follows : Total ground- or land-rent of city 
 (including taxes), $250,000,000. Total taxes taken from rent, 
 $160,000,000. Total income left to owners, $90,000,000. 
 
 Let us see what would follow from exempting houses and 
 buildings from taxation and an increase in the rate on land. 
 How would it affect the building of cities and the housing of 
 the people? What are the social and industrial consequences 
 of such a taxing policy? 
 
 Penaliang Industrious Owners 
 
 France levies a tax on windows. As one travels through 
 French villages he sees the windows of the peasant sealed up 
 with cement. The people live in darkness in order to escape a 
 tax. During the eighteenth century a chimney-tax was imposed 
 in Ireland. The Irish tenant met the tax by tearing down his 
 chimneys. He preferred to live in the dirt and smoke of a 
 chimney-less cabin rather than be taxed. The tax destroyed 
 the thing taxed, just as it always tends to do. 
 
 Economists all protest against these medieval taxes. They 
 smile at the short-sightedness of the French statesmen. Are we 
 in America any wiser than the French in our methods of local 
 taxation? They are probably just as honest in their approval 
 of the window-taxes as we are in our admiration of the tax 
 on houses and improvements which discourages, fines, and 
 punishes him who builds a house, or improves his estate, or 
 erects a model tenement, or conforms to the sanitary regulations 
 of our cities. For do we not tax the man who builds a beautiful 
 building more heavily than him who builds an ugly one? Do we 
 not punish with a fine him. who erects a model tenement, and 
 thereby encourage the lazy owner who is content with his slum? 
 Do we not penalize the farmer or the workman who paints his 
 house, or adorns his dwelling with things of art and beauty, or 
 employs an architect instead of a contractor? Do not our laws 
 in effect applaud the man who leaves his property and his land 
 as disreputable as possible? Do we not say to the farmer: 
 if you put your land in market gardening we will assess you 
 
SINGLE TAX 69 
 
 $500 an acre, but if you let it grow up in weeds we will assess 
 you but $50 an acre? At least that is the way it appears to every 
 tax-payer, be he great or small. It consciously or unconsciously 
 affects his mind in every contemplated improvement. These are 
 the arguments that are advanced to village and township-assess- 
 ors by farmers and home-owners who resent instinctively the 
 injustice of being taxed because they do a thing for which they 
 know they should be applauded. Further than this, we encourage 
 men to hold land idle. We discourage improvements. This is 
 clearly the result of taxing houses, buildings, crops, machinery, 
 and personal property. 
 
 Build a Fire Behind the Speculator 
 
 Now let us see what would happen to the idle land-speculator, 
 to the man who does nothing with his land in the city or in the 
 suburbs, as well as to the energetic farmer who wants to own 
 as beautiful a house as possible, to the man who erects a fine 
 apartment or a model tenement, to the man who instals new 
 plumbing and complies with all the tenement regulations — if we 
 were to reverse our present system and repeal all taxes on im- 
 provements and houses. We should then give legal encourage- 
 ment to the things that we most want : to buildings, to houses and 
 factories, to model tenements, to truck gardening, to art, archi- 
 tecture, and beauty. We should encourage industry and cheapen 
 the prices of things in the stores as well as the rents in the cities. 
 We- should stamp with public approval the man who contributes 
 to the well-being of humanity, rather than penalize him for his 
 industry. We should encourage the man who produces wealth. 
 These surely are the results which would follow from ceasing 
 to tax the things that we most want, just as the taxation of 
 windows and chimneys led to their disuse. 
 
 To Bring Idle Land to Market 
 
 But I have not yet touched on the greatest of all benefits 
 which would follow city-planning, the building of cities, and 
 the housing question — and that benefit is the cheapening of land. 
 It would do this in two ways. First, the taxation of land forces 
 it into use; it brings it to the market. And this is an unmixed 
 blessing. We should feel that it is a crime for men to produce 
 bread or clothes or shoes and hold them merely for speculation. 
 
70 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 And yet the speculative holding of land is even more costly to 
 society than the withholding of these necessities of life. For, 
 given the land, we can produce wealth; and the forcing of idle 
 land into the market would bring down its price. This is the 
 inevitable result of increasing the supply of any commodity. 
 It has been estimated that at least half of the land in every large 
 city is held out of use all the time by speculators. 
 
 The second influence that cheapens land-values is the re- 
 duction of the rent or income which it produces. For a tax 
 on land-values is paid by the landlord; it is taken from ground- 
 rent. The landlord cannot shift it on to some one else as he can 
 a tax on houses or on any other wealth produced under competi- 
 tion. I need hardly verify this from authorities, yet an appreci- 
 ation of this fact is so fundamental to an understanding of the 
 effects which would follow, that I quote two leading economists 
 on the subject. Ricardo, the great English pohtical economist, 
 says: 
 
 A tax on rent would affect rent only; it would fall wholly on land- 
 lords, and could not be shifted to any class of consumers. The landlord 
 could not raise rent. 
 
 John Stuart Mill confirms this statement. He says : 
 
 A tax on rent falls wholly on the landlord. There are no means by 
 which he can shift the burden upon any one else. A tax on rent, there- 
 fore, has no effect other than the obvious one. It merely takes so much 
 from the landlord and transfers it to the state. 
 
 Let us make the statement concrete. If a man is getting $50 
 a year ground-rent from a piece of land, the land is worth the 
 capitalized value of the ground-rent, or $1,000. Now if the 
 state increases the tax and takes $20 of this ground-rent, the 
 landlord's income will fall to $30, which (capitalized as before) 
 makes the land worth $600. If the tax is still further increased 
 to 4 per cent., the capital value of the land is reduced to $200; 
 and if the tax is increased to S per cent, the capital value of the 
 land disappears altogether, for all of its earnings have been taken 
 in taxes. In other words, ground-rent is the income that is 
 left after taxes are deducted. If taxes are increased, rent is 
 decreased. If taxes are diminished, rent is increased. The land- 
 lord and the state are really partners in the ownership of the 
 land. 
 
SINGLE TAX 71 
 
 The Land-Owner Pays the Tax 
 
 It may be said that the landlord will meet any increase in 
 taxes by an increase in rent, just as the taxes on sugar, clothes, 
 or any other commodity are shifted to the final consumer. But 
 this he cannot do, as experience has demonstrated. The land- 
 tax remains where it is originally placed. Certainly, so far as 
 vacant land is concerned, there is no one but the landlord to 
 pay the taxes. He could only shift the tax by leasing the land 
 to some one to use; and if all the land were thus brought into 
 use, the competition of sellers and users would be such that 
 this of itself would bring down the price of land, just as it does 
 the price of everything else. 
 
 It is this cheapening of land-values that is so important in 
 the solution of the housing question or the planning of cities. 
 This, with the stimulus to use the land, would bring about a 
 revolution in city-building that would surpass all of the regu- 
 latory measures and all of the health and sanitary inspection that 
 can be devised. There is no reason why the building of homes 
 should not inspire the same sort of ingenuity, skill, and scientific 
 enthusiasm that is awakened by the building of automobiles. 
 And such skill would be awakened were the land-owner subjected 
 to the same sort of pressure that drives the manufacturer and 
 the business man. This the taxation of land will bring about. 
 And if the owner of land were compelled to build houses, and 
 were those houses relieved from taxation, there would arise a 
 competition for tenants that would of itself solve the housing 
 problem. Then owners would introduce beauty and the latest 
 sanitary devices from necessity rather than from legal compul- 
 sion. The builders would be moved by self-interest to devise 
 attractive homes rather than warehouses for human beings. 
 Home-building is a backward industry. It has not begun to 
 keep pace with other things. In all essentials we build houses 
 much as we did fifty years ago. The reason is that population is 
 always outrunning the supply of houses. Almost anything can 
 be rented in our cities, no matter how cheap, tawdry, or un- 
 homelike it may be. 
 
 This I think is verified by New York City. No city in the 
 world approaches the American metropolis in the convenience, 
 attractiveness, and splendor of the office-buildings and apart- 
 
72 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 ment-houses, or the wonderful ingenuity of the hotels. Buildings 
 begin to be antiquated almost as soon as they are completed. 
 Twenty years' time sees a great reduction in their rent, or brings 
 about their demolition. This is not due to the high price of land. 
 If that were the cause, London would surpass New York in 
 splendor, and Chicago would vie with it. It is due to the honest 
 valuation of land and the high tax imposed upon it. And if we 
 carried the tax still higher, if we doubled the existing rate, 
 landlords would be compelled to enter a race for tenants just as 
 automobile manufacturers now race for purchasers. House and 
 apartment building and the housing question would be subject 
 to the same laws of competition that govern other businesses. 
 
 This cheapening of land, which can be carried to any extent 
 by taxation, would make city building easy. It would enable 
 parks, boulevards, and docks to be acquired and developed; it 
 would permit the location of public buildings and the opening 
 up of open spaces and playgrounds. Public buildings could be 
 grouped so as to secure the maximum of architectural effect, 
 while suburbs could be laid out in a generous and beautiful 
 manner. There is no reason why the cities of the future should 
 not be garden cities — just such garden cities as Washington, 
 Diisseldorf, Frankfort, and a dozen cities in Europe — just such 
 garden cities as have been planned by philanthropists and busi- 
 ness men. The only obstacle is the prohibitive price of city land. 
 
 The great advantage of the reform suggested lies in the fact 
 that it is automatic. An ounce of taxation will do more to clean 
 up a slum than a score of sanitary policemen. Self-interest is 
 the moving force in all other business. Why should it not be 
 made operative on the land-owner? He has no vested right to 
 be made rich by the growth of the community. Nor has he any 
 vested right to hold land out of use, to block the orderly de- 
 velopment of the city, and at the same time make the price of 
 all other land so high that the rents of the whole community 
 are forced up in consequence. For that is what happens. It is 
 the withholding of land from use that explains the high rents, of 
 our cities ; it is this that lies at the root of the housing problem ; 
 it is this that is responsible for the high cost of living — for only 
 a fraction (and a very small fraction) of the land in America 
 is used. And yet it is all owned. And I have never met a land- 
 owner who did not feel that his land was worth from 50 to 100 
 
SINGLE TAX 73 
 
 per cent more than it would really produce. Try to buy farm- 
 ing land within twenty miles of any large city and see the prices 
 which are asked. Study the metropolitan values asked for busi- 
 ness sites in the Western cities. 
 
 The cities of Australasia as well as those of northwest Can- 
 ada have already recognized the justice as well as the expediency 
 of exempting improvements from local taxation. Nearly a 
 hundred communities in Australasia have abolished the house 
 and improvement-tax, while within the last few years quite a 
 number of the new cities in western Canada have, by municipal 
 action, done the same thing. The inspiration of this action was 
 in each case the same. It was the desire to check land-specula- 
 tion and to encourage building. And the testimony of all these 
 experiments is to the same effect. Officials, business men, and 
 ordinary citizens unite in admitting that the burden of taxation 
 has tended to the breaking-up of great estates ; it has led to an 
 encouragement to building that was unprecedented, and has stim- 
 ulated not only the building of homes but their ownership as 
 well. 
 
 Congressional Record. 48: 13196. August 29, 1912. 
 
 Mr. Bulkley said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker : In view of the general interest now being man- 
 ifested in the subject of taxation throughout the country, I desire 
 to take advantage of the privilege of extending my remarks 
 by submitting for the Record an extract from a speech by a 
 former Member of this House, the late Hon. Tom L. Johnson, 
 at a gathering of farmers near Akron, Ohio, August 29, 1905, 
 when he was the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio. 
 
 After speaking on the issues in state and county for some 
 half hour Mr. Johnson, as was his custom, called for questions. 
 A venerable gentleman, with long white whiskers, arose and 
 said : "Mr. Speaker, I have a suspicion from what I have read 
 in the papers, that you desire to place all taxes on land. Is this 
 correct?" Some one else in the audience then called out: "Tell 
 us about the Single Tax." Replying to the elderly man Mr. John- 
 son said : "Most emphatically, no." He paused for a moment, 
 then continuing, said: 
 
 "But if you mean that I have a desire to place all taxes on 
 
74 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 land values, I answer most decidedly, 'Yes.' If you want to hear 
 about the Single Tax, I will stay with you and let my tent meet- 
 ing in the city wait, while I say that if it were not for this idea, 
 called Single Tax, I would not be here to-night. This is the rea- 
 son that I am what I am and making the fight which we are 
 now in. A tax on land would be an unjust and iniquitous system, 
 but a tax on land values would be the best and fairest system 
 that the world has ever known. Laws which would bring about 
 the taxation of land values would be of more service to hu- 
 manity than any legislation ever yet enacted. Farmers are large 
 owners of land, but not of land values. We have land in our 
 city that sells at the rate of $5,000,000 per acre. Have any of 
 your farmers lands as valuable as that? In New York city there 
 is land that sells for $15,000,000 per acre. Is there any land in 
 this neighborhood at that price? 
 
 "To answer my friend's question I will relate a little talk 
 I had one day with Congressman Pierson, of Tuscarawas County, 
 when we were in Washington together. Pierson was a farmer 
 and said to me one day : 'Tom I can not go your Single Tax ; 
 it would be a hardship on the farmers, and they already have 
 more than their share of the burden of taxation.' 
 
 "I said : 'Look here, Pierson, if I thought the Single Tax 
 would increase the farmers' burden I would not stand for it for 
 one minute. In fact, if I did not know it would be the greatest 
 blessing to the farmers and to the workingmen in the city as 
 well, I never would advocate it again. I can show you that 
 the Single Tax will lighten the farmers' burden as compared with 
 the present method. Let me ask you some questions to see 
 if we can get at the facts in the matter. How much, Mr. Pierson, 
 of the present tax burden do you think the farmers bear?' 
 'Well,' he answered, 'the farmers constitute over half the pop- 
 ulation of the United States, and I should say that they pay 
 at least 60 per cent, of all taxes.' 'Very well, let's call it 50 per 
 cent to be safe.' 'No, no,' said Pierson, 'that's too low. They 
 pay more than 60 per cent, rather than less.' 'All right; but to 
 be safe, let's call it 50 per cent' 
 
 " 'Now, Mr. Pierson, I want you to tell me how much of the 
 value of land the farmers have in the United States? Please 
 take into consideration all the valuable coal lands, the iron, silver, 
 gold, copper, and other valuable mines; the water privileges, the 
 
SINGLE TAX 75 
 
 railroads, and their rights of way and terminals, including street 
 railroads, telephones, and telegraphs, for these are built on the 
 most valuable lands ; all the gas and electric lighting rights of 
 way built on land of great value; all the city lots, some of which 
 are worth more than a whole county of farming land. I want 
 you to take all these into consideration and then tell me how 
 much of these values in the United States the farmers have.' 
 
 "Mr. Pierson replied, 'Well, I should say less than S per 
 cent.' I said, 'Call it lo per cent to be safe.' 'Oh, no, no ; that's 
 entirely too high; that's double.' 'Well, we will call it lo per 
 cent, anyway. Now, don't you see that if the farmers are pay- 
 ing so per cent, that if all the taxes were raised by a Single Tax 
 on land values the farmers, since they have but lo per cent of 
 these values — you say 5 per cent — would pay less; that their 
 taxes would be reduced five times? That instead of paying 
 one-half, as now, they would under that plan pay but one-tenth?' 
 
 " 'I declare, Tom, I never looked at it in that light, and 1 
 guess you have got me.' 
 
 "So, I say to the farmers here tonight, that this Single Tax, 
 of which I am proud to be an advocate, would be to the over- 
 burdened farmers and workingmen the greatest boon, the great- 
 est blessing, the greatest godsend that any country ever knew. 
 I wish you good night." 
 
 Arena. 10 : 52-8. June, 1894. 
 
 Single Tax in Actual Application. Hamlin Garland. 
 
 A theory that is morally and logically right will work in 
 practice, but at the same time a practical example of the working 
 out of the principle involved is valuable. The single-tax men 
 seem to have such an exemplification in the case of New Zealand, 
 where an effort has been put forth to discourage land speculation 
 by means of a land tax. It is not precisely the Single Tax — prob- 
 ably the single-tax men will consider that its greatest fault — 
 but its work of checking land speculation and breaking up the 
 large estates is admitted. 
 
 I have before me the advance sheets of the Consular Reports 
 from the Bureau of Statistics in Washington, wherein Mr. John 
 D. Connolly, consul to New Zealand, gives his report. It is so 
 
76 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 valuable just now when the question of the Single Tax is being 
 strongly advocated that I quote quite fully from it. Mr. Con- 
 nolly begins by saying : — 
 
 Land Taxation in New Zealand 
 
 In the matter of taxation laws New Zealand excels as compared with 
 the other Australasian colonies, and perhaps with many older countries. 
 Here, at least, legislation has- been introduced that has been most violently 
 assailed as being experimental, socialistic, confiscatory and impracticable. 
 But regardless o£ this terrible arraignment, the taxation laws have been 
 fully and successfully established and given pi-actical effect, even while 
 other countries were theorizing on the same principles. 
 
 It is true there were many who, through the public press, in the halls 
 of legislation, and on the highways and byways of the country, proclaimed 
 their belief that the changes in the incidence of taxation would surely 
 involve the country in financial ruin ; but subsequent events conclusively 
 demonstrated how ill-founded were their apprehensions. The most deter- 
 mined opposition to the "new taxation" came from the moneyed institu- 
 tions, loan companies, and the owners of vast landed estates. It was 
 found, however, as soon as the new system became law and was thor- 
 oughly established and fully understood, that, instead of involving the 
 colony in ruin, it had exactly the contrary effect. The credit of the colony 
 in London (which is, of course, the centre of financial operations so far 
 as the colonies are concerned) increased to an unprecedented degree. 
 New Zealand's credit is better to-day on the London money market than 
 is that of any other colony of Australasia. 
 
 As will be seen above the opposition came from the moneyed 
 classes and from land speculators in the colony; they had no 
 doubt about the effect of the tax. A synopsis of the system is 
 given here. 
 
 Up to 1891 a land and personal-property tax was imposed; but during 
 the years of depression the colonists generally complained of the personal- 
 property tax as being a grievous burden. One of the first acts of the 
 new government was to abolish the "property tax" and substitute an "im- 
 provement tax." All improvements on land up to $15,000 were exempt, 
 but all improvements above that amount were taxed. 
 
 The deduction of mortgages and of improvements up to a value of 
 $15,000 renders very many owners exempt from land tax, the total number 
 of land-tax payers in 1891 being 12,557 out of a total of 91.501 owners 
 of land in the colony. It will be borne in mind that there is an exemption 
 fo $2,500, so that no man pays any taxes for state purposes until his 
 property is worth over the above amount. The special exemption just 
 referred to reduces the number of taxpayers. An owner whose land and 
 mortgages, after the deduction of mortgages owing by him and of improve- 
 ments up to the value of $15,000, do not exceed $7>5oo is allowed a 
 deduction by way of exemption of $2,500 (already mentioned), and this 
 
SINGLE TAX 77 
 
 amount gradually diminishes until it disappears altogether when an owner's 
 assessed value, less reductions, reaches $12,500. 
 
 In addition to the ordinary land tax, a graduated tax is levied, and for 
 this all improvements are deducted; but an owner is not allowed to make 
 any deductions for mortgages owing by him, and he has not to include in 
 his return any mortgages owing to him. This tax is not imposed on any 
 owner the value of whose land, less the improvements thereon, does not 
 exceed $25,000, and the lowest rate imposed is one-eighth of a penny in 
 the pound. The rate gradually rises until it reaches twopence in the 
 pound on the improved value of lands up to $1,050,000 or more. 
 
 This tax, it will at once be seen, is an approach to the Single 
 Tax advocated by Mr. Henry George. In general principle it is 
 the same ; that is to say, it makes it difficult to hold land out of 
 use and makes improvement easy by exempting it from tax up 
 to the limit of $15,000. 
 
 The most interesting and valuable part of the report shows 
 that the present tax has come along these years of experiment 
 exactly in line of Mr. George's plan : — 
 
 In 1891, as already mentioned, the property tax was abolished and a 
 tax on improvements substituted. In 1892 the tax act was so amended as 
 to exempt all improvements under £3,000 in value, and in 1893 improve- 
 ments of every kind were exempted and an income tax introduced instead. 
 By the abolition of the tax on improvements a loss to the revenue of the 
 country was sustained equal to about £37,000, but this loss will be com- 
 pensated for in some degree by the scale of graduated tax having been 
 increased. 
 
 Thus in three years the entire system of taxation has been almost com- 
 pletely changed, and, it is gratifying to say, with the most beneficial effect. 
 Each change made was in the direction of relieving those who were least 
 able to pay and making those to whom the additional burden of taxation 
 would make no material difference contribute (what they had not hitherto 
 done) a fair share of the revenue required in proportion to their means. 
 
 Let the reader note whence the opposition came. Mr. Con- 
 nolly goes on to say : — 
 
 It was persistently alleged by the banking and moneyed institutions 
 generally, and also the large land owners, that the radical changes made 
 in the incidence of taxation would result in such a serious loss to the 
 revenue of the country that borrowing must again be resorted to imme- 
 diately to defray the expenses of the government, but the results have 
 proven they are not prophets. 
 
 The common people, however, having felt the good effects 
 of this system, returned the promoters of it to power with the 
 largest majority ever given a government in New Zealand. The 
 
78 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 significance of this is that they have discovered the barrier to 
 progress, landlordism, and propose to abolish it. 
 
 In addition to this land tax with its exemptions, they have 
 also a graduated land tax and a.n income tax. The income tax 
 is not satisfactory thus far, but of the graduated land tax Mr. 
 Connolly says : — 
 
 Graduated Land Tax 
 
 There is what is known as a graduated land tax, in addition to the 
 ordinary tax of the same kind, on land values over £5,000 ($25,000) 
 in round figures. The object of imposing this additional tax is to compel 
 those possessed of large estates and who are holding them for speculative 
 purposes to either subdivide or offer such lands for bona fide settlement. 
 
 Under the circumstances, the justice and wisdom of this act are quite 
 apparent when it is remembered that 1,766 owners hold from 1,000 to 
 10,000 acres each, 232 owners hold from 10,000 to 50,000 acres each, and 
 thirty owners hold over 50,000 acres each. 
 
 The improved value of land held by fourteen land owners amounis 
 to $27,690,245, while six owners hold land the improved value of which is 
 $12,813,900. The total value of unim^proved land held in large areas — 
 say from 5,000 acres upwards — in 1892 amounted to the vast sum of 
 $272,360,875. Thirty-two companies, such as banks, land and loan com- 
 panies, insurance and mortgage societies, own 1,321,036 acres, the im- 
 proved value of which is given by the commissioner of taxes at $12,916,405; 
 and the unimproved value is by the same authority said to be equal to 
 $9,467,690. From the foregoing figures, it will be observed that it has 
 become necessary to take some steps to prevent the further accumulation of 
 vast estates and the withholding of them from settlement and development. 
 Though the graduated tax is not regarded as being too burdensome, yet it is 
 to u. large extent having the desired effect. Many of the immense estates 
 are being freely offered to the government at their taxable value, while 
 some are being cut up in suitable farms and offered at public auction. 
 
 In order to discourage absentee landlordism the reformers in 
 New Zealand have imposed an extra burden of twenty per cent 
 additional tax upon those who have been absent three years. 
 This however is only a quibble. All landlordism should be made 
 unprofitable, absentee or resident. 
 
 With regard to the Single Tax itself, Mr. Connolly goes on to 
 remark : — 
 
 The Single Tax 
 
 That there is very little difference between the present land tax and 
 the Single Tax as proposed by the Single Taxers, as they are called here 
 in New Zealand, is easily shown. The principal points of difference may 
 be briefly explained. The Single Tax would be levied at a uniform rate 
 
SINGLE TAX 79 
 
 and without exemption upon all properties, irrespective o£ size. The mort- 
 gagee would be treated in precisely the same manner as the owner, i. e., 
 it would consider him as being part owner of the improvements, as well as 
 of the land. There would be no absentee tax; all land owners would be 
 treated alike. The £500 exemption, the absentee and graduated tax (ex- 
 clusive of the income tax) are the only diverging features as between the 
 Single Tax and the present land tax. 
 
 Mr. Connolly a few years ago bitterly opposed the Single Tax. 
 He seems now to understand very thoroughly the arguments of 
 the single-tax men and comes very near to agreement. [Appar- 
 ently the American farmer is a land owner. As a matter of 
 fact he is a renter or wage-earner. He has very little land value 
 to tax, and as under the Single Tax all his improvements would 
 be exempt and all indirect taxation abolished he would be one 
 of the greatest gainers. He is now quite landless. He owns 
 under mortgage or he rents. These conditions existed in New 
 Zealand but are being changed by the tax on land values.] 
 
 At the same time it is worth the while of the Single Tax men 
 to consider the matter of an exemption in connection with the 
 introduction of the Single Tax among the American farmers. 
 It would need to be a small exemption, say $750 or $1,000. In 
 some states it could be $1,000. The case would then stand. The 
 farmer would pay no taxes on his improvements, and no taxes 
 on his land values until those values rose above $1,000. Let 
 him also remember that improvement value is exempt; it is 
 merely site value which must exceed the thousand-dollar limit. 
 
 Personally I feel certain that an exemption is not needed, 
 because on the majority of farms in bona fide farming districts 
 the improvements exceed the site value of the land, and the 
 farmer having his stock, tools and buildings exempt would 
 at once pay less taxes than now. In cases where the land value 
 exceeded improvements, the exemption of improvements from 
 taxation would make improvement easier, and the decreased 
 price of lumber, coal, iron and other commodities which would be 
 released from monopoly would also aid in making improvement 
 easy. [In short the man who feels the New Zealand tax, and 
 the man who would feel the effects of the Single Tax, is the man 
 who is living by rents, or by interest, which is only rent in 
 another form. In other words the man who earns his living 
 will find his burden lightened, while the man who lives in the 
 sweat of his neighbor's face will find that power cut down.] 
 
8o SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 In the case of New Zealand another point is of special value. 
 Mr. Connolly says : — 
 
 The number of taxpayers lias decreased under the land and income 
 tax by nine thousand twenty-eight, while the revenue has increased 
 $100,000. It is to the absentee and graduated tax that the increase may 
 be attributed. 
 
 This is to say the poor have been released from tax and the 
 monopoHst has been made to shoulder part of the load. Observe 
 that this would not have happened if the tax had been placed 
 upon the improvements of the wealthy, for if placed upon any- 
 thing whose price could have been raised to cover the tax, the 
 consumer would have paid his original burden and more too, 
 in indirect taxes. Being placed upon land values it decreased the 
 price of land and brought it into the market, thus making it 
 impossible to shift the tax. 
 
 This is a fundamental principle of the Single Tax. It makes 
 land plentier and therefore lower in price, and it cannot be shifted 
 by raising the price of land so long as landis being brought into 
 the market in increasing quantities, for the price of land would 
 fall and not rise. 
 
 That the Single Tax would have an instant effect on the wages 
 of working men is also shown by this report, for not only has 
 the colony been steadily prosperous through the hard times of 
 the last year, but it has absorbed without ill effects a constant 
 stream of working men. 
 
 The effect of the tax on land values is precisely like that of 
 opening new land to settlement. It brings it out of the specu- 
 lator's hands into the settler's hands. It passes out of the hands 
 of the monopolist into the hands of the contractor and builder. 
 Speculation employs no labor. The moment speculation sur- 
 renders its hold, use begins and prosperity begins. This was 
 proven in New Zealand. 
 
 The effect of opening new lands by taxing speculation reacts 
 through all trades. It benefits the shop girl and the mechanic 
 as well as the settler, the gardener or the builder. There is an 
 empire of land out of use right here in our eastern cities and 
 their suburbs. This land can be opened to use in one way 
 and only one way, by making it unprofitable to hold it out 
 of use — that is, by taxing it precisely the same as if it were in 
 use. 
 
SINGLE TAX 8i 
 
 This is the fundamental idea of the plan pursued in New 
 Zealand with such fine results, and this is the fundamental prin- 
 ciple of the Single Tax. The working farmer has no more cause 
 to fear it than the mechanic. It will lift the burden which they 
 have borne so long upon their bowed shoulders, and it will tax 
 back into the common treasury a value which the whole people 
 creates and which a few monopolists at present enjoy. 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 112:737-46. December, 1913. 
 
 Case for the Single Tax. F. W. Garrison. 
 
 Briefly stated, the Single Tax is a method of raising money 
 for the necessary expenses of government by taking the rent, 
 or the annual yield of land-values, alone, abolishing all other 
 forms of taxation, direct or indirect. It may be described as 
 government without taxation, for, if the Georgian contention is 
 true, the rent of land belongs not to the individual who would be 
 required to surrender it, but to the community as a whole. 
 
 On what just basis can I claim exclusive right to a part of the 
 limited surface of the earth? "No man made the land," said 
 j\Iill. "It is the original inheritance of the whole species.'' No 
 matter how far we delve into the past, we can find no just title 
 to the private ownership of land. A Vermont judge, when 
 asked to return a fugitive slave to the man who claimed owner- 
 ship, rephed, "Show me a bill of sale from the Almighty and I 
 will deliver him." The same reasoning may be applied to land 
 titles with equal force. Blackstone admits that "there is no 
 foundation in nature, or in natural law, why a set of words 
 upon parchment should convey the dominion of land." "Whilst 
 another man has no land," says Emerson, "my title to mine, your 
 title to yours, is at once vitiated." And Herbert Spencer main- 
 tains that land-titles all rest on force, fraud, or cunning. When 
 Edward I sent his commission to inquire into the existing 
 judicial franchises in 1278, Earl Warenne flung a rusty sword on 
 the table and cried, "This, Sirs, is my warrant. By the sword 
 our fathers won their lands when they came over with the Con- 
 queror, and by the sword we will keep them," 
 
 Man is a land animal, and access to land is essential to human 
 life. If the earth were to be divided among all men living to-day. 
 
82 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 in shares of equal value, the next child born would have a just 
 complaint against a bargain which ignored his inherent right 
 to an equal share. Jefferson recognized the force of this argu- 
 ment when he declared that "the earth belongs in usufruct to the 
 living." Land is the universal mother, capable of feeding, cloth- 
 ing, and sheltering all her children, but turned by perverse human 
 laws into an unnatural parent, absurdly indulgent to some of 
 her offspring and merciless to others. Land is the source of all 
 wealth ; from it human labor extracts "the sum of all things 
 which tend to satisfy the physical, intellectual, and spiritual needs 
 of mankind" ; and being the reservoir of wealth, it must not be 
 confounded with wealth, to which it bears the same relation 
 that the fabled goose bore to its golden eggs. Concede the 
 exclusive use of the land to a part of the human race, and the 
 remainder can live only on the sufferance of the proprietors. 
 
 In the early home of the English race the free man was 
 distinguished from the dependent by the ownership of land. But 
 even under feudalism the possession of land was conditioned 
 upon a return of some kind to the sovereign, as representative 
 of the people. Personal property in England was not taxed 
 until 1188, when Henry II levied the Saladin Tithe for a crusade 
 fund. In the law of eminent dornain we still acknowledge that 
 the ownership of land should be conditional on the rights 01 
 society at large. Speaking in the House of Commons, Cobden 
 described the transition by which the landlord managed to evade 
 his just burdens. "For a period of one hundred and fifty years 
 after the Conquest the whole revenue of the country was de- 
 rived from the land"; but it was gradually shifted until, by 1845, 
 land contributed but one twenty-fifth. "Thus," he declared, "the 
 land, which anciently paid the whole of taxation, pays now only 
 a fraction . . . notwithstanding the immense increase that 
 has taken place in the value of rentals. The people fared better 
 under the despotic monarchs than when the powers of the State 
 had fallen into the hands of a landed oligarchy, who first ex- 
 empted themselves from taxation, and next claimed compensation 
 for themselves by a Corn Law for their heavy and peculiar 
 burdens." 
 
 In the early days of settlement in the United States, when 
 land was plenty, there was little or no poverty. Despite a lack 
 of capital, subsistence was to be won from the earth, and it w^s 
 
SINGLE TAX 83 
 
 easy for the laborer, dissatisfied with his wages, to become his 
 own employer. But this happy condition did not last. In 1873 an 
 English observer echoed the warnings of Henry George. He 
 called attention to the fact that the country was "flinging to the 
 winds its splendid patrimony and recklessly selling and alloting 
 to railway companies or land-jobbers what might be the national 
 revenues of the future. What repentance awaits that country," 
 he exclaimed, "for having given to some of the railways grants 
 of 25,600 acres per mile of road, and for assigning to the 
 Northern Pacific Company alone, 58,000,000 acres !" It is esti- 
 mated that from 250,000,000 to 350,000,000 acres of the public 
 domain have been "granted to the Pacific railways or illegally 
 appropriated by persons and corporations in conspiracy with the 
 agents of the government." 
 
 Repentance has been late in coming, but it has taken a secure 
 hold on the country at last, in the conservation movement, which 
 aims to check the prodigal waste of the natural resources of the 
 government. We have awakened to the folly of permitting the 
 alienation of the rich mineral deposits, the valuable forests and 
 water-power sites which still fall within the public domain. 
 
 Well may the conservationist ask himself if the bounties of 
 nature were stored during the ages for the special benefit of the 
 Morgans, Rockefellers, and Carnegies, their heirs and assigns. 
 Does their insight and financial genius sufficiently compensate 
 us for the surrender of such a disproportionate share of the 
 common inheritance? And if not, do their princely charitable 
 bequests square the account? When we look about us upon the 
 accumulating misery which the most highly organized charity 
 and the richest endowments have proved, themselves powerless 
 to stay, we can but ask ourselves if the doctors have correctly 
 diagnosed the case. Charity is like a drug which, taken habitually, 
 weakens the moral fibre. It warps the judgment of him who 
 gives and him who receives. In the Middle Ages men bought 
 indulgences from the Pope. To-day they buy them from their 
 conscience with a dole to charity. It was the contemplation of 
 such a state of things that led Maeterlinck to ask if, after all, 
 charity were aught but the "insolent flame of permanent 
 injustice." 
 
 That whatever a man creates by his own labor belongs ex- 
 clusively to him, and cannot justly be claimed by any one else. 
 
84 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 is regarded by Single-Taxers as a self-evident truth, and by its 
 acceptance they become the champions of property in its true 
 sense, and the implacable foes of privilege. They recognize three 
 factors in the production of wealth : land, labor, and capital (or 
 wealth set apart to aid in the production of more wealth) ; and 
 between these three factors the product must be divided. The 
 share of land is rent, that of labor, wages, and that of capital, 
 interest. Confusion may arise from failure to make clear the 
 meaning of the term rent. In common parlance no distinction 
 is drawn between the sum paid for the use of land and that paid 
 for the use of factories, houses, machinery, and so forth. The 
 distinction is, however, all-important. The return received in 
 the form of rent from all things created by labor is in reality 
 either wages for the labor expended, or interest on the capital 
 employed, and may be said to be earned. But the rent arising 
 from land, known as economic rent, can be credited to no in- 
 dividual effort and is in fact the measure of social activity. It 
 exists "wherever any particular portion of land affords superior 
 opportunities, or advantages of fertility or situation, over that 
 which is freely open for any one to use." 
 
 The flood of humanity which flows and ebbs daily through 
 a great city's thoroughfares gives to those localities exceptional 
 opportunities in the way of trade, and men are willing to pay 
 large sums to do business there. Imagine every building swept 
 away by some catastrophe ; so long as the population remained 
 alive, the rental value of the land would persist. In Baltimore 
 and San Francisco, land-values rose after fire had done its 
 worst. It is not due to the genius or industry of the Astors or 
 the house of Bedford that land in the heart of New York and 
 London sells at the rate of $15,000,000 an acre. From their roots 
 safely imbedded in the soil, they flourish like the lilies of the 
 field, although they toil not. They need do no work nor risk 
 a cent of capital ; in other words, they need not contribute in 
 any way to the production of wealth, and yet they have the 
 power to use wealth in excessive abundance. 
 
 Greatly concentrated land-values are to be found in railway 
 franchises and exclusive rights of way for telephone, telegraph, 
 pipe-lines, and so forth, in docks, the control of water-power 
 sites, oil, gas, and mineral deposits. The annual mineral output 
 of the United States amounts to $2,069,289,196 according to the 
 
SINGLE TAX 8S 
 
 U. S. Geological Survey for 1908. Frederic C. Howe points out 
 that a royalty of twenty-five per cent on this natural monopoly 
 alone, would yield $517,322,299, or almost as much as the sum 
 collected through the customs and internal revenue. It is esti- 
 mated that the ownership and control by the railways of the 
 anthracite coal deposits in Pennsylvania makes it possible to 
 take from the consumer from one to two hundred miUion dol- 
 lars a year above a reasonable cost of producing the yearly out- 
 put. The stupendous income from natural monopoly, now ab- 
 sorbed by private interests, can be easily imagined. 
 
 As land-values fluctuate in precise agreement with social de- 
 velopment, there are losses as well as gains to be taken into 
 consideration. When Edward I massacred the inhabitants of 
 Berwick, "the greatest merchant city of northern Britain sank 
 from that time into a petty seaport." Every one is familiar with 
 the ups and downs of special localities in our modern cities. 
 But it remains true that, taking a community as a whole, so long 
 as it is developing, and evolving a higher state of civilization, so 
 long will the land continue to yield an increasing rent. We are 
 not here concerned with the landlord as a laborer or capitalist. He 
 may improve his land by building offices or factories upon it, 
 and for their use receive what is commonly called rent, but only 
 that part of the sum which represents desirability of situation 
 is rent in the economic sense. 
 
 It may be urged that the returns which the landlord receives 
 in the shape of rent are the reward of skill and foresight in in- 
 vestment, and that great rewards are only fair where the chances 
 of failure are great. And we are often told that if society takes 
 the increase of value on land, it ought to make good the decrease 
 of value which is a kindred phenomenon. Single-Taxers believe 
 that speculation in land is as inexcusable as speculation in air or 
 light would be ; and indeed it involves them both, Speculation 
 will cease as soon as the landlord is obliged to turn over to the 
 public treasury the full economic rent, a sum which will vary 
 with the varying fortunes of the locality. At the same time he 
 will reap the full reward of his industry and not be mulcted 
 by taxation as at present. Withholding land from use, in antici- 
 pation of increased values, leads to the intolerable trinity of idle 
 land, idle rich, and idle poor. 
 
 Every improvement made by a city in comfort or beauty is 
 
86 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 reflected in higher rents. "There was a block of traffic in Ox- 
 ford street," said Arnold Bennett. "To avoid the block people 
 actually began to travel under the cellars and drains, and the 
 result was a rise of rents in Shephrd's Bush!" Every tunnel 
 under the Hudson River, every new bridge, and all added 
 facilities of travel, serve but to increase the revenues of the 
 suburban land-owners and the transportation companies. Indeed 
 land-owners frequently receive damages for public works that 
 increase the value of their property. Fortunately this custom 
 is coming into disrepute as light is let in upon the land question. 
 Mill gave the name of "unearned increment" to the increase 
 of value which normally accrues to the land in every growing 
 community, as it is not earned by the landlords into whose 
 pockets society permits it to be diverted. Manhattan Island was 
 bought from the Indians for $28, and the land of New York 
 City is now valued at more than $3,500,000,000. The phenomenal 
 increase in land-values is daily reported in the columns of the 
 newspapers. Mr. Joseph Pels, an ardent disciple of Henry 
 George, offers a personal, if modest, example. A few years ago 
 he bought eleven and one half acres of land in West Philadelphia 
 for $37,500. The city moved in that direction and three thousand 
 houses were built in the vicinity. As a result, and without im- 
 proving his property, Mr. Fels saw its value leap in successive 
 stages to $125,000. He does not, however, pretend that this 
 growing value is justly his, or due to his skill or foresight. "The 
 unearned increment," he says, "in justice and right, belongs not 
 to me, but to the community. I have done nothing to make 
 that value. My part has been to hold the land out of best use. 
 Yet the profit is mine legally, and I have some consolation from 
 the thought that I intend to expend it in such a way that condi- 
 tions may be changed, to the end that neither I nor any other 
 man shall have the power to make money out of the work and 
 sweat of others. I shall do my part in this work by devoting 
 money and efforts to disseminating the truth concerning what 
 some of our opponents speak of slightingly as "the Single Tax," 
 which some refer to lovingly as the economic philosophy of 
 Henry George, and which I shall call plain justice." 
 
 John Moody gives the estimated wealth of the nation in 1907 
 as about $120,000,000,000, and figures that about one half is 
 what might be called created wealth. The balance he calls spon- 
 
SINGLE TAX 87 
 
 taneous wealth, or unearned increment. Here we have a social 
 fund upon which no individual has a just claim, and amply 
 suiBcient for the needs of government. Why not use it for that 
 purpose and remit the tribute exacted from labor and capital 
 by taxation? 
 
 "Why tribute? Why should we pay tribute? If Csesar can 
 hide the sun from us with a blanket, or put the moon in his 
 pocket, we will pay him tribute for light; else, sirs, no more 
 tribute, pay you now." 
 
 What that tribute is becomes apparent whenever we trace the 
 action of our tax laws. Having alienated the fund for govern- 
 ment needs which nature provides, other sources of revenue 
 had to be found and taxes levied that would raise the most 
 money with the least outcry. Hence arose the indirect taxation 
 which has found its fullest flower in that luxuriant but poisonous 
 growth — the protective tariff. The Roman taxes were farmed 
 out to syndicates which at least paid the expenses of collection 
 out of their spoils. But the beneficiary of the protective system 
 absorbs his tribute without expense, shifting the heavy burden 
 of collection upon the government, which receives but a small 
 part of the general contribution. And from the amount collected 
 by the government must be deducted the actual cost of custom- 
 houses and a huge force of clerks and spies withdrawn from 
 productive employment, to say nothing of the moral cost of 
 creating an artificial crime and fostering international jealousies. 
 
 The well-to-do make a great outcry over double taxation, and 
 rightly, but few concern themselves with the multiple taxation 
 of the poor. For it is upon the poor that the bulk of taxation 
 falls, the rich having ways of shifting a large part of the burden 
 upon those beneath. A tax has been likened to a hot copper 
 which is quickly passed from one hand to another until it reaches 
 the last man in the line, who gets burned. Thomas G. Shearman 
 estimated that "taxes are so arranged as to take from the poorer 
 classes 75 to 80 per cent of their annual earnings while exacting 
 from the rich only 3 to 10 per cent." When Mr. Rockefeller 
 gives $10,000,000 to Chicago University he is the ostensible 
 donor; the real contributors are the unknown thousands who 
 must pay tribute to Mr. Rockefeller on account of his monopo- 
 lies as gigantic landlord and tariff beneficiary. "As the laws are 
 to-day," says Lawson Purdy, "no wealthy man, who has legal 
 
88 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 advice, need pay any direct taxes on personal property.'' Those 
 who cannot hide or afford expert service must pay. 
 
 Glance at the problems which keep pace with the growth of 
 material prosperity, the familiar picture of concentrated wealth 
 and abject poverty side by side. We cannot see the palaces of 
 the rich without being conscious of the neighboring slums, where 
 human beings live crowded together in miserable hovels, unable 
 even to enjoy the light and air to which no man as yet claims ex- 
 clusive title, and which are supplied by nature in boundless pro- 
 fusion. What does the slum landlord give his tenants in return 
 for the rent he exacts for squalid buildings in surroundings that 
 breed disease and death? He gives the privilege of occupying 
 a site made valuable by the pressing needs of society, and in- 
 creased in value artificially by land held idle for speculative 
 gains. But if the social value were reclaimed for public purposes, 
 idle land would be forced into use and the owners of tenements 
 would have to offer better homes. Competition would keep rents 
 withjn bounds, and laborers, released from taxation, would 
 have more to spend on the decencies and comforts of life. And 
 the landlord, no longer taxed on every improvement, would 
 have some incentive to add to the attractiveness of his property. 
 
 If, by taking economic rent for public purposes, we release 
 idle land, and at the same time encourage industry by the re- 
 moval of taxes, we are respecting the rights of property with 
 scrupulous nicety; and we shall create a demand for labor which 
 will solve the menacing problem of unemployment The vice 
 and crime which spring from slums as naturally as disease, and 
 are in fact disease, will be checked at their source. Remove 
 from the breasts of the criminals, who prey upon society, the 
 ever-present feeling that society is arrayed against them, and 
 that laws are made and administered for the rich, and who can 
 say what forces of regeneration will spring into action? 
 
 Nor is there any other solution than freedom from taxation 
 for the bitter and wasteful struggle between labor and capital. 
 Their needs are in fact the same, for capital has no other office 
 than to facilitate labor in the production of added wealth. The 
 issue is confused because the capitalist is often a monopolist as 
 well. The common enemy of both capital and labor is monopoly, 
 and when it is abolished, each will receive its reward in interest 
 and wages. The increased demand for labor will make wages 
 
SINGLE TAX 89 
 
 higher, and labor unions will be unnecessary; and the fear of 
 deadly competition being removed, the immigration problem will 
 cease to be a problem at all, and workers from other lands will 
 be welcomed to aid in the production of wealth the natural 
 limits of which have never been described. 
 
 The abolition of tariffs and the recognition of the right to 
 the use of the earth vi^hich all its inhabitants possess, will at last 
 lay the spectre of war, and lead to the abandonment of an armed 
 peace which is only less crushing and brutalizing than war itself. 
 It will be no small gain to be rid of the military class with its 
 "natural drift toward lawlessness and violence." The drones 
 created and maintained by the army and navy establishment and 
 the bureaucracy of tax departments will be freed for productive 
 labor. In fact, there is no social question occupying men's minds 
 and absorbing their energies that will not be modified by the 
 liberation of the land. PoUtical corruption, which usually starts 
 from the headquarters of monopoly, will cease from lack of 
 temptation. 
 
 The remedy is not a visionary one. Forty years ago John 
 jMacdonell, in his book on the Land Question, said : "We vex 
 the poor with indirect taxes, we squeeze the rich, we ransack 
 heaven and earth to find some new impost palatable or tolerable, 
 and all the time, these hardships going on, neglected or mis- 
 applied there have lain at our feet a multitude of resources 
 ample enough for all just common wants, growing as they grow, 
 and so marked out that we may say they form Nature's budget. 
 . To no transcendental motives does the project appeal. 
 It demands no miraculous draught of administrative talents or 
 public virtues. It is simple and intelligible. It is nothing but 
 giving the body politic the blood which it has secreted." 
 
 It is not uncommon to hear persons who admit the force of 
 the abstract argument declare that private monopoly in land has 
 been sanctioned so long by custom that to abolish it would lead 
 to unwarranted confiscation. They point to the fact that many 
 innocent persons have invested in land at the high prices which 
 a monopoly system creates, and they demand compensation for 
 the vested interest attacked. The same arguments that served 
 in the agitation over slavery are heard again, and England's 
 compensation of slave-owners is held up for our admiration. 
 The fact is that in the case of land monopoly, as in that of 
 
90 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 slavery, there are conflicting demands to be settled. Nobody 
 suggested that the slaves be compensated for their loss of wages, 
 and no one today suggests that the people whose substance has 
 flowed so long into the landlord's coffers be compensated for 
 their arrears of tribute. But may they not as justly seek compen- 
 sation as those whom it is proposed to deprive of their monopoly? 
 
 The abolition of any legalized wrong involves hardship to 
 those who are profiting by it, and the longer it is postponed, the 
 greater the penalty which justice exacts. To take the people's 
 money to purchase for them something which in nature belongs 
 to them is too absurd, and it is safe to say that it will not be 
 attempted in this instance. The process doubtless will be to 
 concentrate taxation gradually on land-values, relieving industry 
 at the same time. This method, involving delay, does not mete 
 out full justice, but it is at least in line with human progress. 
 "Compromise is man's law, to do right is God's.'' 
 
 To those who have seen a vision of better times to come, 
 any step in the right direction, however feeble, however hesi- 
 tating, brings courage and hope. Such is the legislation embodied 
 in the Lloyd George Budget of igog, with its tax of a half-penny 
 in the pound on the value of land (with some exceptions), and 
 twenty per cent on the unearned increment. The amount of 
 justice done is slight, but the recognition of the principle is of 
 supreme importance, and the popular education accomplished 
 by the political campaign has been far-reaching in its results. 
 The potential power in the movement to free the land was thor- 
 oughly apprehended by the great land-owning class, and hence 
 the desperate resistance made by the House of Lords (or the 
 House of Landlords, as it has been aptly termed). The lords 
 failed to heed Cobden's warning to land-owners against forcing 
 the subject of taxation upon the attention of the middle or 
 industrial classes. "Great as I believe the grievance of the pro- 
 tective system," he said, "mighty as I consider the fraud and 
 injustice of the Corn Laws, I verily believe you will find as black 
 a record against the land-owners as even the Corn Law itself. 
 I warn them against ripping up the subject of taxation." 
 
 Whether or not it is a characteristic of human nature, it is 
 an undoubted fact that laws are commonly made in the interests 
 of the law-makers. Sometimes this is done crudely and openly, 
 for the personal gain of a legislator, as in the case of much tariff 
 
SINGLE TAX 91 
 
 legislation; more frequently it is accomplished by general legis- 
 lation, unconsciously dictated by class interest. The three hun- 
 dred and sixty peers who voted to reject the Lloyd George 
 Budget own almost one seventh of the land surface of the United 
 Kingdom, an area equal in extent to sixteen English counties. 
 
 Progress and Poverty was published in 1879. The author 
 claimed no originality for the doctrines he expounded regarding 
 the rights of land-ownership; but in exploding the commonly 
 accepted Malthusian theory, that population tends to increase 
 faster than the means of subsistence, he removed forever the 
 stigma which rested upon political economy. The "dismal sci- 
 ence" was a figment of the Malthusian imagination. With the 
 realization that a livelihood is within the reach of all who are 
 given access to their birthright, that poverty and all its attendant 
 evils are the results of bad laws, and not decreed by an inscrutable 
 Providence, arose a new hope for social regeneration. We need 
 not fear the shock of a too sudden arrival of the millenium. To 
 a friendly critic, who accused Henry George of too expansive 
 an optimism, he replied, "You say you do not see in the Single 
 Tax a panacea for poverty. Nor yet do L The panacea for 
 poverty is freedom. What I see in the Single Tax is the means 
 of securing that industrial freedom which will make possible 
 other triumphs of freedom." 
 
 Seeing the cause of so much human misery, and believing 
 that they are possessed of a remedy, Single-Taxers are naturally 
 optimistic. And their optimism is strengthened when they look 
 back over the record of a single generation. South Australia 
 was the first to respond to the new idea, and in 1886 adopted 
 a land-value tax which was later extended to municipalities. In 
 Queensland the exemption of improvements from taxation was 
 begun in 1891, and has been gradually extended, until in 1905 a 
 Conservative government made the exemption complete. More 
 than ten per cent of the annual value of land now goes to the 
 community. New Zealand began to tax unimproved land-values 
 at the same time, and nearly one half of the total taxes now 
 come from this source. In 1896 New South Wales followed 
 suit, and, with the cooperation of the land-owners in some in- 
 stances, has gone further than any other state, at least twenty 
 per cent of the annual land-values being taken for public uses. 
 Western Australia imposes a tax on land-values for state pur- 
 
92 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 poses, besides giving rural districts power to exempt improve- 
 ments. Tasmania has had a tax on the unimproved capital 
 value of land for many years. Victoria is the only Australian 
 state which has held back, and it has suffered in consequence, 
 losing population to states where industry is more justly re- 
 warded. None of the 90,500 square miles of Papua (a depen- 
 dency of the Commonwealth) can be alienated, land being held 
 on lease with periodical reassessment. 
 
 In the German Empire, Prussia was the first to give its 
 municipalities the power to tax land-values, and most of the 
 other states have followed suit, and the power has been widely 
 used. There are fifteen hundred villages supported from the 
 produce of communal lands, without taxation, and in some of 
 them the inhabitants actually receive a dividend. The German 
 dependency of Kiauchou in China is under thq partial sway of 
 the Single Tax, and the minister for the Colonies hopes to ex- 
 tend the system to all the other German colonies. Two Swiss 
 cantons tax land-values for state and municipal purposes, and 
 one of them has no other taxes. Orson, in Sweden, has no tax- 
 ation, and yet provides a street railway fi-ee for all, a library, 
 and public schools, and pays its own taxes to the central gov- 
 ernment. The money comes from a communal forest which 
 encircles the town. 
 
 The United States has been slow to adopt the ideas which its 
 citizens have done so much to popularize throughout the world. 
 Progress and Poverty has been translated into all the European 
 languages. Not long before his death Tolstoi wrote, "The in- 
 justice of the seizure of the land as property has long ago been 
 recognized by thinking people, but only since the teaching of 
 Henry George has it become clear by what means this injustice 
 can be abolished. At the present time the abolition of property 
 in land everywhere demands its solution as insistently as, fifty 
 years ago, the problem of slavery demanded solution in Russia 
 and in America. The supposed rights in landed property are 
 the foundation not only of economic misery, but also of political 
 disorder, and, above all, of the moral depravity of the people." 
 
 In May, 1913, an international Single-Tax Congress was held 
 at Ronda, Spain, at which were present delegates from the chief 
 European countries as well as from the Spanish-American states, 
 where the movement has entered the field of practical politics. 
 
SINGLE TAX 93 
 
 But nowhere are experiments along single tax lines more strik- 
 ing than in Western Canada, where the taxation of land-values 
 is firmly established and rapidly extending. A large number of 
 municipalities depend entirely upon this form of taxation for 
 local revenues and the provincial governments are moving in 
 the same direction. Under this policy the growth and prosperity 
 of such cities as Vancouver, Edmonton, and Victoria have chal- 
 lenged world-wide attention and are attracting a yearly emigra- 
 tion from the United States of between 100,000 and 200,000 of 
 our most industrious and wide-awake citizens. An increasing 
 pressure is thus exerted from across the Canadian border. 
 The Minnesota report on taxation, issued in 1912, predicts that 
 "within the next ten or twenty years the Single-Tax principle 
 will be adopted by every taxing district in Western Canada.'' 
 
 The Canadian practice has been to reduce the tax-rate on 
 personal property and improvements from year to year, in- 
 creasing proportionately the rate on unimproved land-values ; 
 and the Tax Commissioner of Houston, Texas, has followed this 
 example, without waiting for specific legal authorization. But 
 the first state in the Union to adopt legislation of this character 
 was Pennsylvania. The new statute, passed in May, 1913, obliges 
 cities of the second class (Pittsburg and Scranton) to reduce 
 the rate on buildings to ninety per cent of that on land and to 
 continue by reductions of ten per cent every three years until 
 a fifty per cent reduction is reached. A similar bill for New 
 York City is pending before the legislature. It proposes to 
 reduce the rate on buildings, to one half the rate on land within 
 five consecutive years. 
 
 St. Joseph Newfs Press. July 10, 1907. 
 
 Land Tax in Germany. 
 
 Germany has been experimenting with a tax on land values, 
 and the result is interesting. According to our ex-consul at 
 Berlin, William C. Dreher, in his article in The Review of 
 Reviews for April, nearly three hundred towns and villages 
 have adopted the system. An example of the working of the 
 law is instanced from the city of Spandau, where it was estab- 
 lished four years ago. One owner of extensive suburban lands 
 
94 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 there, who had been paying only $23 a year on their revenue, 
 derived from potatoes and market gardening, had his tax raised 
 at one bound to $3,330. The subsequent incidents are worth 
 adding. His city lots went like hot cakes at reduced prices, 
 and the community profited by extensive building operations 
 on his tract. 
 
 Frankfort-on-the-Main was the first German city to apply 
 this tax in 1904. Cologne followed the next year and at this 
 time fifteen Prussian cities are taxing land valuations according 
 to what the increment is -worth. The state legislatures of 
 Bavaria, Baden, Hesse and Saxony are agitating at present 
 measures of varying provisions looking to the introduction of 
 the increment tax. In some of the legislatures such bills have 
 actually passed one branch. Four of Berlin's suburban towns 
 have applied the tax, but not yet Berlin itself. 
 
 0,f course all this has not been done without opposition. 
 Holders of city property throughout Prussia are up in arms 
 against the new tax ; and with them stand the thirty or more land 
 speculating companies in Berlin, which have invested in sub- 
 urban real estate not less than $18,000,000 within the last three 
 years. The agitation for the land value tax is methodically 
 carried on by an organization of tax-reformers incorporated 
 eight years ago and now numbering over 300,000 members. 
 
 American Magazine. 72:221-30. June, 1911. 
 
 A Community That Pays Its Own Bills. Albert Jay Nock. 
 
 All Canada's public land with its timber, minerals and water, 
 not only in Alberta but also in her sister province of Saskatche- 
 wan, in Manitoba and the unorganized Northwest Territory, 
 is held by the Dominion Government as public property and is 
 not for sale. "There isn't enough money in all England or the 
 United States to buy a single acre,'' says Mr. Oliver, plainly. 
 "The reason is that the Dominion wants citizens, not speculators." 
 There are no land grants in Canada, either. Canada has seen 
 "development by private enterprise'' at work in the United States, 
 and knows what it amounts to, and knows which side her bread 
 is buttered on. 
 
 The moral influence of this policy is very striking. I had 
 
SINGLE TAX 95 
 
 a particular interest in observing its educational effect on the 
 thousands of otir people who are moving over into Canada each 
 year. It has given them a clear idea of that fundamental doc- 
 trine of democracy, the right of public property. 
 
 It is a brand-new experience for our emigrant settlers, for 
 there is no such doctrine anywhere in the United States. The 
 Constitution is iron-clad on the right of private property, but 
 none of our constitution-builders except Franklin and Jefferson 
 seemed to catch any glimmering of the correlated right of public 
 property. It never got into our documents, never came to be 
 part of our thought, and hence none of us ever considered it 
 seriously or perhaps ever realized that such a right existed. 
 
 Possibly — such are the vices of our education — nine persons 
 out of ten who read this article may have to make a conscious 
 effort to realize that there is a natural difference between prop- 
 erty in land, minerals, timber, water powers, etc., and property, 
 say, in a house or a suit of clothes. 
 
 But in Canada, laid deep in the foundation of this new civil- 
 ization and woven into the opinion of the people, is the doctrine 
 that land and its resources, by whomsoever used or developed, 
 is public property. 
 
 And now on top of this comes the tax policy of the Province 
 of Alberta, teaching the great truth that a community, like an 
 individual, should live on what it earns. 
 
 Land is public property; therefore the use of land is a gov- 
 ernmental privilege. Canada's general land policy teaches that. 
 Well, then, Alberta simply chooses to live on the income of her 
 privileges. She does not beg or filch from her citizens by taxing 
 their property. She leads a self-respecting life. She had but 
 one subject of taxation — her land. 
 
 It seems reasonable. Governments all apparently expect their 
 individual units to live on what they earn. Why shouldn't gov- 
 ernments try the same thing themselves, by way of a good ex- 
 ample? Alberta does. 
 
 When our citizens are asked to contribute under the general- 
 property tax, I often wonder that it does not occur to them to 
 ask "Why should I pauperize the government? Why should I 
 give part of my earnings to support a government that has 
 resources enough of its own to take care of itself twice over?" 
 
 Some of our correspondents think we are very mawkish in 
 
96 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 our disinclination to curse the tax-dodgers. They think we 
 should have pilloried the big corporations that do not pay their 
 personalty tax, and that we ought to haul Mr. Carnegie over the 
 coals. Still, it is rather a grave thing to run lightly amuck at a 
 fundamental instinct of human nature. Each of us has the 
 notion pretty well ingrained in him that he is entitled to keep 
 all he earns. I have it; so have you. Probably Mr. Carnegie 
 has it, and Altman's bondholders or Park & Tilford's, whoever 
 they may be. And the instinct is right — that is the reason why 
 no other theory of taxation except Alberta's will ever be found 
 to work. Whether we fully realize it or not, every time the 
 government bilks us of some share of our rightful earnings, 
 whether by the property tax or the income tax or the excise or 
 the tariff or by this new sweet scheme of taxing corporations, 
 our plain, natural sense of justice is offended, and we will dodge 
 if we can. There is no use trying to argue a legal right into a 
 moral right; human nature is too old for that. The fact is that 
 we will get out of it whenever we can because we know we 
 have a moral right to keep all we earn,' and a very little thought 
 will show us that the community also has an equally valid right 
 to keep all it earns. 
 
 Alberta says to her citizens : "Here is land with its potential 
 wealth. What gives value to it is the number of persons who 
 want it. Help yourself. All you make out of it is yours — no 
 tax on property, industry, production or labor. Pay simply what 
 the demand (the number of people who want it) determines 
 the privilege is worth. If you can make ten milHon dollars we 
 won't begrudge you a single dollar ; and if you want to put up a 
 house built of silver or gold, we won't tax it a cent. But whether 
 you choose to work this privilege or leave it idle, you will pay in 
 either case just what it is worth." 
 
 The policy of the United States, on the other hand, has always 
 been, and still is, to alienate her resources into private hands, 
 and deprive herself of their income. The laws embodying this 
 policy are still in force. The United States invited speculators, 
 got them, fixed up a comfortable tax policy to suit them (e. g., 
 the Astor family and Trinity Church in New York City, the 
 railroads and the Weyerhaeusers in the Pacific Northwest), and 
 we, the rank and file of the disinherited, pay the bills. The 
 United States is in the position of one who throws away his 
 
SINGLE TAX g; 
 
 own resources and lives on his friends. This is sponging, and 
 sponging is unpopular and degrading. How is it dignified by- 
 being transferred from men to governments? 
 
 The Province of Alberta invites citizens, gets them, and pays 
 her own bills out of her own income without passing the hat for 
 help. The Province of Alberta exemplifies collective self-re- 
 spect in levying no tax except against the private use of public 
 property. 
 
 Such, in briefest outline, is Alberta's tax policy. One would 
 like to believe that she worked it out by careful economic study, 
 but to tell the truth, she drifted into it by accident. Alberta 
 was erected into a province only five years ago. Her first legis- 
 lature knew no more about taxation than legislatures ever do, 
 but in leafing over some old Territorial legislation they found 
 these provisions, thought they were worth trying and took them 
 over. 
 
 No one knows who put them into the Territorial statutes. 
 Rumor and fable have been busy as they always are with the 
 origins of any great success, but the fact undoubtedly is that 
 land was taxed in Territorial days because there was nothing 
 else to tax. There was nothing to the Northwest at that time 
 but land and air, and since the air was not assessable, the land 
 was the only thing that held any prospect of revenue. 
 
 In other words, by good luck and good management. Alberta 
 shows the development of an almost purely natural system of 
 taxation. 
 
 Admirable as Alberta's policy is, she does not insist upon 
 her cities and towns adopting it. She gives them the largest 
 liberty to work out their own experiments. Under the Village 
 Act her smallest communities may raise their revenues to suit 
 themselves. Most of them, however, have fallen in with her 
 system ; and foremost among these is the capital city of 
 Edmonton. 
 
 Edmonton too, like the province, gat her economic education 
 largely by accident. She began with taxes on "improvements," 
 on business and on incomes. She gave up the income tax because 
 she could not get at the income of her richest citizens ; the busi- 
 ness tax passes out this year because the spirit of the place has 
 been educated beyond it, and her improvement tax disappeared 
 on account of a collision with the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
98 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 When the Company was incorporated in 1670, King Charles 
 II granted them territorial rights that extended virtually over 
 all outdoors — rights that have arisen to plague the Dominion 
 Government time out of mind, until they were for the most 
 part bought out. One block of the Company's remaining land, 
 however, turned up in the very center of Edmonton. 
 
 The Company played the old familiar game of forestalling. 
 They did not use the land, would not sell it, would not do any- 
 thing with it but patiently hold it until the influx of population 
 into Edmonton had sufficiently enhanced its value. 
 
 There the land lay like an ounce of putty in a dyspeptic's 
 stomach. As Edmonton grew, it had to grow around this un- 
 assimilated center. All the public utilities were intolerably 
 strained. Sewers, water-pipes, gas-pipes, wires, street-car tracks, 
 all had to stretch around the Company's reserve. 
 
 It was a fearfully expensive business, and Edmonton had 
 the wit to see that while she was paying all the bills, the Com- 
 pany was getting all the benefit. Edmonton shortly decided 
 that if the Company wanted to play dog-in-the-manger with that 
 land, they were welcome to the privilege, but they must pay 
 for it. So she exempted her improvements and laid her whole 
 realty assessment against the capital value of land. As popula- 
 tion enhanced this value year by year, the Company's tax bill 
 grew until last year, with great complaint and vexation, they 
 sent the assessor a check for $74,445.10. Realizing that by 
 another year the bill would come to $100,000 or more, the Com- 
 pany gave up and decided to put the land on the market. 
 
 Out of this simple and universal experience, Edmonton worked 
 out for herself an incalculable economic benefit and a far more 
 important and valuable economic education. 
 
 There is not a city in the United States that has not had 
 Edmonton's initial misfortune, and not one but that under 
 freedom of the taxing power could have coped with it as Ed- 
 monton did. But our constitutional restraint upon the taxing 
 power operates wholly in favor of speculation, wholly against 
 industry, and our cities are helpless. 
 
 Consider, for example, Detroit, Mich. The site of Detroit 
 used to be farmed by a commonplace type of Canadian French 
 who lived on peacefully in a humdrum way until the city came 
 and gave their realty holdings a rousing value. Two farms 
 
SINGLE TAX 99 
 
 called the Brush and Cass farms, lying on either side of Detroit's 
 main thoroughfare, were held persistently out of use. The city's 
 growth had to sidestep them or jump over them, thereby strain- 
 ing public utilities (and only those who have lived out Wood- 
 ward Avenue know how they are strained) mightily increasing 
 the burden of general taxation, inconveniencing everyone, caus- 
 ing the city to grow out of all symmetry — a sheer case of private 
 benefit at public cost. These pieces of land remained utterly 
 useless until some one could be maced out of the right amount 
 of premium required to use them. 
 
 If the unused land in Detroit's present area were put under 
 intensive cultivation, it would more than support her population. 
 Unlikely as it seems. New York's would very nearly support hers. 
 Few realize that nearly fifty per cent of New York's area is 
 unused land. 
 
 Well, the remedy appears simple — why not tax it into use? 
 Edmonton did. 
 
 First, because we have no constitutional freedom of the tax- 
 ing power. The Supreme Court would like nothing better than 
 to get a chance at a proposition like Edmonton's. Then, second, 
 we have had no Secretary of the Interior like Mr. Oliver to 
 teach us that land and its resources are public property. Again, 
 we have no British Columbia to show us how to shift the burden 
 of taxation from industry to idleness. Finally, we have no 
 Alberta to give us an example of communal self-respect in living 
 on its own earnings. 
 
 No, we have been "going by the Constitution," assuming that 
 the only test of private property is the ability to get our hands 
 on it ; and meanwhile our federal, state and municipal govern- 
 ments are contentedly pauperized by a general-property tax. 
 
 It is a disgrace. Say what one likes about patriotism, one 
 can feel no great pride in belonging to the only civilized coun- 
 try in the world that mulcts its citizens by a general-property 
 tax. It is unreasonable to expect it. 
 
 If Canadian reciprocity would only enable us to trade off our 
 practical politicians for public servants and legislators like Frank 
 Oliver at a ratio of sixteen to one, we might look for a beginning 
 of better things. It is a pleasure to believe that our new Secre- 
 tary, Mr. Fisher, will find Mr. Oliver's statesmanship a most 
 congenial study. 
 
100 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Alberta's tax system and Edmonton's, excellent as they are, 
 are not yet perfect. There is one weak place in them which will 
 shortly be remedied. This weakness may be perceived by means 
 of the following anecdote : 
 
 The weakness of Edmonton's system (and the same is true 
 of Alberta's provincial system) is shown in letting the market 
 value of that lot, which is not centrally located, go up $20,000 
 in three months when there was nothing substantial to justify 
 such an increase. 
 
 Edmonton, by maybe a little stretching, has. 30,000 population. 
 She covers seventeen sections of land, nearly half a township. 
 The Hudson's Bay holding helps largely, of course. Now the 
 point is that if Mr. O'Meara had bought this lot, there is not 
 near population enough or business enough in Edmonton to 
 justify his making any present use of it (say, in the way of 
 putting up a building) that would be commensurate with the 
 price of his land. 
 
 In other words, $35,000 for that lot is a valuation far and 
 away ahead of the present time, and $55,000 looks ahead a great 
 deal farther still. 
 
 These values are speculative, not actual. They do not 
 represent the worth of the land's present use. They are a 
 mortgage on the future, a discount on the prosperity of the 
 whole community. In short, like Vancouver, Calgary and all 
 these rapidly growing towns, Edmonton is overcapitalized. The 
 capital value of her land is more than it is worth. 
 
 Hence Edmonton realizes that she needs one more feature 
 in her tax system and she is on her way to get it. The Prov- 
 ince of Alberta realizes the same need and she too will shortly 
 have it. 
 
 Edmonton needs to change her basis of assessment, and 
 assess against the rental value of her land instead of against 
 its capital value. Alberta, which as yet needs little money and 
 contents herself with levying merely an acreage tax, will shortly 
 make the same readjustment. 
 
 The change is assured because this region is free — and it is 
 the only region I ever saw that was free — from the superstition 
 that what is known as "the real-estate business" is the index 
 of prosperity. 
 
 People believe this, I suppose, on somewhat the same theory 
 
SINGLE TAX loi 
 
 that induces certain hungry savages to swallow earth. Specula- 
 tive values are no real asset to a community because the only 
 thing that land is good for is to use. If Mr. O'Meara had 
 bought that lot for $3S,ooo and sold it three months later for 
 $SS,ooo, he would simply have capitalized future annual land 
 rentals to the amount of $20,000; hence, he would have appro- 
 priated $20,000 from the general fund of Edmonton's land rent. 
 He would not have earned a penny of it — as he himself so 
 handsomely admitted — and the community which probably 
 would earn it some time in the future would have lost the 
 money. 
 
 It is worse policy to overcapitalize a town than a railroad — 
 and Heaven knows that is bad enough. You may catch up to 
 your capitalization in time, and then again you may not. Plenty 
 of land booms have "busted" and some are bursting now. And 
 when you do catch up, the money is not there; some thrifty 
 landowner has absorbed it. Meanwhile, you find that fictitious 
 valuations are a fearfully troublesome asset to live up to. They 
 increase your borrowing power, true, but this again is a snare, 
 for if ypu were not overcapitalized you would not need to 
 borrow. Figuratively, your city has to do a four-track business 
 over a single-track road and scamp repairs and operating 
 expenses in order to keep up to its capitalization. 
 
 But let us suppose, if we can, that Alberta's tax policy, even 
 as it stands, had been in effect in Washington and Oregon. 
 Would the Northern Pacific be holding for speculation three 
 million acres of timber land worth between $ioq and $200 per 
 acre — land which it acquired mostly for nothing and now holds 
 practically tax-free? 
 
 Would it be holding for speculation millions of acres of 
 agricultural and mineral land on the same terms? 
 
 Would the Weyerhaeusers be holding for speculation 
 96,000,000,000 feet of standing timber in the Pacific Northwest ; 
 would the Southern Pacific be holding 106,000,000,000 feet, while 
 their henchmen howl against the Government for "retarding 
 development" and "tying up our natural resources" in the 
 National Reserve? 
 
 Hardly. 
 
 If Detroit could have taxed the Brush and Cass farms into 
 use, would she not be a better and richer city to-day? If 
 
102 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Portland, Ore., could treat the holdings of her mayor and a 
 few of his political cronies as Edmonton treated the holdings 
 of the Hudson's Bay Company, would she not be indefinitely 
 better off? If Seattle's land values — but O my soul, let's draw 
 the veil of merciful silence over those ! 
 
 Our States and cities cannot save themselves from the sinister 
 consequences of over-capitalization, on account of the consti- 
 tutional restraint upon the taxing power. True, without it they 
 might not save themselves for a long time to come on account 
 of our protracted training in the idea that land is private 
 property. But the abolition of constitutional restraint upon 
 the taxing power is the first step in our education, and without 
 it we can do nothing and learn nothing. 
 
 The Province of Alberta, the city of Edmonton, and a 
 multitude of smaller places in Canada are merely examples of 
 the course that all communities will take when they are free 
 to follow their economic education. 
 
 The right of public property and the right of collective 
 self-respect — these two principles distinguish the Province of 
 Alberta. These conceptions are essential to democracy. There 
 is no doing without them. Direct legislation, commission gov- 
 ernment and so forth, which are interesting us just now, are 
 all very well in their way, but they are politics and politics is 
 machinery. You cannot run democratic machinery with feudal- 
 istic steam. A people that will tolerate a feudalistic exercise of 
 the taxing power cannot express itself in permanent or powerful 
 democratic institutions. It has nothing to express. But where 
 there is a correct theory of taxation, where there is a 
 current doctrine of public property, as in the Province of 
 Alberta, it is impossible for any but democratic institutions to 
 flourish. 
 
 For instance, in Alberta and the other portions of Canada 
 where these two ideas have taken root — the right of public 
 property and the right of corporate self-respect — they run up. 
 logically into a very large practice of public ownership. Al- 
 berta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba swept out the Bell Monopoly 
 and operate their own telephones over immense stretches of 
 rural district. The service is excellent and very cheap. Grain 
 elevators and certain slaughterhouses are operated as public 
 utilities. The cities largely operate their own franchises, 
 
SINGLE TAX 103 
 
 including trolley cars. The Saskatchewan Legislature is con- 
 templating an ambitious measure of leasing back all its coal 
 and water powers from the general government and using them 
 in a comprehensive scheme for the ownership and distribution 
 of heat, light and power throughout the province. The people 
 are free-traders from the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains. 
 The Grain Growers, meeting recently at Regina, demanded 
 straight free trade and a Dominion-wide poHcy of land-value 
 taxation. 
 
 Yet the people do not call themselves Socialists or any such 
 high-sounding name. I have not once heard the word Social- 
 ism. They seem to be unconscious that they are doing anything 
 unusual. The officials of the Province of Alberta are astonished 
 at the floods of inquiry that pour in on them from all parts 
 of the United States. They conceive of themselves as doing 
 only the natural thing, the simple and reasonable thing, and they 
 are amazed that it could create so much interest and be thought 
 so revolutionary. 
 
 Summing up our brief investigation, we find that the general 
 government of Canada exhibits : 
 
 1. Constitutional freedom of the taxing power. 
 
 2. The right of public property. 
 British Columbia exhibits : 
 
 3. The partial exemption of industry and production. 
 Alberta exhibits : 
 
 4. The entire exemption of industry. 
 
 5. The doctrine of communal solvency and self-respect, in 
 levying no tax whatever except against the private use of public 
 property — against the rent of a delegated monopoly. 
 
 American Magazine. 72:335-8. July, 1911. 
 
 Why Nature's Way Is Best. Albert Jay Nock. 
 
 On the boundary line between the Canadian provinces of 
 Alberta and Saskatchewan hes the town of Lloydrainster. Half 
 of it is in Alberta and half in Saskatchewan. The boundary 
 line runs down the middle of the main street. There is the 
 same taxable area on each side. Local improvements requiring 
 revenue — paving, sidewalks, fire protection, etc. — are the same. 
 
104 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 No better situation could be made to order to give example of 
 two tax systems side by side. 
 
 Alberta permits her cities, towns, and villages an unlimited 
 freedom of the taxing power. Saskatchewan does not. Her 
 restraint is very slight, but she does not ,trust local experience 
 and knowledge to the full as Alberta does. She prescribes a few 
 subjects of taxation for her towns, and among them are real- 
 estate improvements, to be assessed at 60 per cent of their value. 
 
 Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, therefore, among other taxes, 
 levies against improvements. Lloydminster, Alberta, on the 
 other hand, taxes nothing that can move. She taxes only her 
 land values. 
 
 Hence everything that can move without sacrificing more 
 than the advantage in taxation comes to, moves over to the 
 Alberta side. The Saskatchewan town was started two years 
 before the other, and many considerable investments remain 
 there for the present; but even the men who own the businesses 
 on that side are building their residences in Alberta. Men like 
 Mr. Bell, Mr. Gumming, and Mr. Scott, who conduct respect- 
 ively the largest hotel, general store, and hardware business in 
 Lloydminster, reside on the Alberta side. New business locates 
 in Alberta, as a matter of course. Mr. Ashton, whose business 
 is in Alberta, tells me that if his building and stock (now 
 exempt) were on the other side of the street, it would make a 
 difference of about $12,000 in his assessment. I submit Lloyd- 
 minster as a concrete showing of the effect of natural taxation 
 upon prosperity. 
 
 The Whence and Whither of Prosperity 
 
 Well, you say, all this is rather to be expected. Prosperity 
 depends largely on industry and industry depends on popu- 
 lation. Population naturally gravitates toward free homes- and 
 untaxed labor, and these are the result of the land-value tax. 
 We know this already. 
 
 Yes, but here is a point that is sometimes overlooked. If 
 population and industry follow the land-value tax, as they do, 
 they must follow it somewhere away from somewhere else. If 
 population streams toward an economic situation that permits 
 free industry and free homes, it must stream away from 
 situations where these are not free. 
 
SINGLE TAX 10,5 
 
 Lloydminster shows in miniature tlie tendency that is oper- 
 ating very powerfully just now between British Columbia and 
 the neighboring States of Washington and Oregon ; between 
 Western Canada and the Eastern provinces as a whole; between 
 cities like Calgary or Lethbridge and Edmonton or Vancouver ; 
 and, finally, between the province of Alberta and the rest of 
 the Dominion. 
 
 Mayor Gaynor had us all dipping into Epictetus a little last 
 winter, so there can be no pedantry in recalling what Epictetus 
 says about the advantage of the natural way of doing anything. 
 If you once get hold of that, you can defy competition from 
 those who are doing it in an unnatural way. Alberta has 
 gotten hold of the method of natural taxation, and commu- 
 nities that try to compete with her on any other basis are out 
 of the running. 
 
 Hence, sooner or later, she makes them toe the mark. Self- 
 preservation finally forces them into line. Sometimes the day of 
 reckoning comes far sooner than one would think. Even after 
 all I saw of the land-value tax in British Columbia cities, I 
 was amazed when only the other day Victoria, the old, staid, 
 conservative capital city, which everyone says is more purely 
 English than London, voted in the land-value tax by a majority 
 of eight to one. 
 
 Why did she do it? Because she could not compete with 
 the other cities in her own province unless she did. She could 
 not stand competition with Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Nan- 
 aimo, any more than Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, can stand 
 competition with Lloydminster, Alberta. 
 
 Put the question to yourself. Other things being equal, 
 would you subject your industry to conditions in the State of 
 Washington where taxation covers everything but fruit-trees 
 and credits, where assessed valuations are so discriminatory 
 and capricious as to demand a local rate of three to seven per 
 cent., if you could exercise it in the comparative freedom and 
 equity of British Columbia? 
 
 Or, again, if you were in Canada, other things being equal 
 or nearly so, why should you try to offset even the slight burden 
 of provincial taxation on your industry in a British Columbia 
 city or rural municipality, if you could settle in Alberta and 
 escape it altogether? 
 
io6 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 How Washington Stands from Under 
 
 More and more are people realizing this situation. Here 
 is a significant fact: For one year past, Vancouver, the largest 
 city of British Columbia, has wholly exempted real-estate 
 improvements. It was told — in fact, it amounts to a general 
 understanding — that during the last six months an average of 
 five families a week had moved from Seattle to Vancouver. I 
 cannot vouch for this absolutely, for the figures are not official, 
 but I am so far from doubting it that I only wonder there are 
 not fifty. The Immigration Office at Ottawa, however, does 
 inform me officially that nearly as many immigrants have left 
 the State of Washington of Canada during the last year as 
 during the three years preceding. The figures are as follows : 
 
 1907 3.829 
 
 1908 7,517 
 
 1909 9,366 
 
 1910 17,734 
 
 The doubling of immigration, at figures of that size, from 
 one year to the next, is certainly interesting. Washington and 
 Oregon together have in four years, since 1906, sped 43,979 
 citizens into the larger liberty of the Dominion of Canada. 
 
 Alberta's Lodestone 
 
 But going back to the conditions that chiefly make for 
 Alberta's prosperity, we find that of the 329,409 who have 
 emigrated from the United States to Canada in the past four 
 years (and incidentally, that means also a minimum of 
 $329,409,000 that went with them), 106,626, or approximately 
 one third, settled in the province of Alberta. The tide of 
 immigration to Alberta is swelling each year. Now Alberta has 
 some natural advantages, it is true, but none that I know of 
 over Saskatchewan, for instance, at the present stage of settle-, 
 ment. When population becomes more dense, Alberta may be 
 found a little better off than her sister province, but even that 
 is doubtful and certainly not to be considered at the present 
 time. But the inexorable economic advantage is with the 
 province of Alberta and will remain with her, operating 
 powerfully against her competitors, until such time as they all 
 fall into line. 
 
SINGLE TAX 107 
 
 ♦Ontario, Canada. Tax Reform and Direct Legislation 
 League. 
 
 How the Farmer Pays City Taxes. 
 
 The average farmer is under the impression that the taxing 
 of improvements in cities is a matter in which he is not inter- 
 ested, and to tell him that the taxes levied on such things as 
 buildings and business takes money out of his pocket, and in fact, 
 is largely paid by him, would appear to him absurd. Yet it is a 
 fact that every dollar of taxes levied upon buildings, or busi- 
 nesses in cities takes more than one dollar from farmers. 
 
 Let us give the matter a little consideration. There are 
 only two classes of things which are taxed to-day; land is one, 
 and labor products the other. Let us consider the effects of 
 taxing each of these things in cities and towns with special 
 reference to the effects upon farmers. 
 
 A tax upon buildings decreases the revenue derived from 
 buildings rented. Thus, a tax rate of 20 mills on the dollar, a 
 common one in towns, will necessitate an increase in the rent 
 of 2 per cent, per annum over and above what is required to 
 give the ordinary return to capital. That is to say, if a man 
 ordinarily was content with the return of 6 per cent, on his money 
 invested in buildings he would require to collect 8 per cent, from 
 his tenant in order to have 6 per cent, left when taxes are paid. 
 
 The tenant of a store where farm produce is handled must 
 get this extra rent out of his business in increased margin for 
 doing business; in other words, out of his customers. This 
 means he cannot afford to pay the farmer so much for his 
 products. But that is not all. In all other businesses, a tax 
 on buildings being added to the rent increases the cost of 
 doing business, and so increases the cost of goods to the 
 consumer. This reduces the demand for goods and the number 
 of men employed in the manufacture, and consequently the 
 market for the farmer. 
 
 The tax being added to the rent of all dwelling houses 
 reduces the amount of a man's income by the amount of the 
 tax, and so reduces the purchasing power of the people for the 
 goods of the manufacturer and farmer. This re-acts on the 
 farmer again in higher prices for things that he needs to buy, 
 
io8 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 and less demand for what he has to sell. Thus, a tax on 
 buildings in the city is largely borne by farmers in the country. 
 
 Now let us consider the effects of taking the tax off buildings 
 and industry and placing it wholly on land values in the cities. 
 It is a notorious fact, that over one-half of the area of every 
 city and town in Ontario is vacant land. Now this land is 
 vacant, not because no one wants it, but because the owner 
 is not willing that it should be put to use unless he is first paid 
 a price, which in his judgment is sufficient to tempt him to 
 stand aside to let someone use it. Often this price is four times 
 what it cost him, and double what it is worth for anyone to 
 use, but until he gets his price he can stand in the way of 
 industry and those who could and would use it at a fair price 
 are compelled to pay what amounts to a heavy fine, before 
 they are allowed to produce wealth and employ labor, or else 
 remain idle. 
 
 The exemption of buildings from taxation and the levying 
 of all taxes upon land in proportion to its value, would prob- 
 ably increase the rate in towns and cities to 4 per cent, of the 
 selling price. In the case of improved property, the exemption 
 of the building would usually more than compensate the owner, 
 except where poor buildings are standing on very valuable land, 
 in which case it would be an inducement to replace the poor 
 buildings with others more suited to the locality. It would 
 also be a very powerful incentive to the owners of vacant land, 
 either to build or to sell. 
 
 Now with taxes of four per cent on the capital value, no 
 one would buy land unless he was prepared to build upon it. 
 Two results would follow. First, the selling price of the land 
 would fall probably one-half, that is to say, the speculator 
 finding that the change in the system of taxation had spoiled 
 his chance of holding up industry for the increase in value 
 which increase in population confers upon land, he would sell 
 at any price he could get if he could not use it to advantage 
 himself. Second, there would be immediately a great increase 
 in the demand for labor and building material, so as to utilize 
 the land released by the speculator and bought by the improver. 
 
 Other results would follow. The increased demand for labor 
 would raise the wages in the building trades. The increased 
 number of stores and dwellings would reduce rent, and both of 
 
SINGLE TAX 109 
 
 these together would increase the abihty of the people to buy the 
 produce of the farmers. This increase in demand would be 
 further increased by a portion of wages of every additional 
 workman employed as a result of the new industrial conditions. 
 
 Let us sum up. The effect would be by reducing the taxes 
 upon buildings to reduce the rent by at least that amount. The 
 fall in the price of land by the destruction of the profits of 
 land forestalling, would still further reduce the rent required 
 to pay the ordinary return to capital and the increase in the 
 supply of buildings would force rent down to that point, so 
 that rent would be based upon the reduced value of land and 
 the cost of the buildings. Other results would be higher wages, 
 more men employed, and a larger amount of wages left to the 
 workers after rent was paid; smaller cost of selling farm 
 produce, allowing of better prices to farmers and reduced prices 
 on goods bought by farmers. 
 
 We think we are well within the limits when we state that 
 a sum equal to the whole of the tax imposed on buildings in 
 cities or towns is taken from the farmers in increased cost of 
 handling farm produce; lower prices for what they sell and 
 higher prices on what they buy, as a result of the taxing of 
 buildings and businesses. 
 
 That is why the tax reform in the cities means increased 
 income for the farmers. 
 
 Tax Reform in Ontario. 
 
 Speculation has been gradually discouraged and industry 
 encouraged in Ontario as follows : 
 
 l8ig — Vacant land in cities and towns assessed 4s. as wild 
 land, or 20s. per acre as meadow land. All buildings, improve- 
 ments, and personal property assessed. 
 
 1837 — Assessment on vacant land in towns increased to £10 
 an acre. Assessment on personal property reduced nearly 
 one-half. 
 
 1888 — Assessment of farm stock abolished. 
 
 1904 — Personal property tax abolished. Business assessment 
 substituted for personalty. Separate assessment of lands and 
 buildings. 
 
 1910 — Farm lands exemption, allowing under-assessment of 
 
no SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 lands in cities abolished. Income exemption increased to $900 
 for non-householders, and $1,200 for householders. 
 
 191 1 — City of Toronto allowed to expropriate 200 feet on 
 either side of proposed street extensions and improvements to 
 secure increased value caused by improvement or extension of 
 street. 
 
 Outlook 103:771-5. April 5, 1913. 
 
 Taxing Enterprise. Richard Spillane. 
 
 The history of my business is not different from that of 
 many other manufacturing concerns. My troubles are the 
 common troubles ten thousand others suffer under. We all 
 know they exist; we all would like to lessen them, but we are 
 almost helpless. How great is the handicap and how many 
 are the obstacles we have to overcome, few persons outside the 
 manufacturing sphere realize. 
 
 Forty years ago my father started business in a loft, in what 
 is now the downtown district of a Middle West city. He had 
 eleven men. His capital was small. He manufactured machinery 
 that has lightened the burdens of men throughout the civilized 
 world. He had courage, ability, and determination. He was 
 not only a good manufacturer, but a. wonderful salesman. He 
 took great pride in his work. He never let a piece of machinery 
 go out of his shop unless it was perfect. He prospered, and as 
 his business grew he required more space. First he hired other 
 lofts in adjacent buildings, then he bought a building or two. 
 Still his business broadened. Every few years he had to have 
 more space. He could not always spare the money from his 
 business to buy the property he needed, so that which he could 
 not buy he rented. 
 
 People who owned property around my father's manufac- 
 tory took advantage of the needs of this industrial space, and 
 they doubled and trebled rents on him. They would not give 
 long leases, but rented only from year to year, and every year 
 they raised the rent. But still the business spread, and the 
 factory rambled all over the neighborhood. In some instances 
 my father managed to have narrow alleys closed by public 
 consent ; in other instances he tunneled under thoroughfares or 
 
SINGLE TAX in 
 
 bridged across them, in order to connect his various buildings. 
 Many, many men fattened on my father's industry. For example : 
 
 A German saloon-keeper owned a piece of land separating 
 two departments of our work. It was a ramshackle old 
 building that the German used, and the land and the building 
 cost the saloon man only $4,000. We bought that ramshackle 
 structure sixteen years ago, but we had to give $16,000 to the 
 German in order to acquire it. 
 
 Now, you understand that there was nothing to increase 
 the value of this saloon man's land except the fact that we 
 needed it for manufacturing purposes. In other words, the 
 saloon-keeper squeezed $12,000 out of us without contributing 
 one cent to the community, either in money or effort. We 
 were bled by all the property-owners in our neighborhood. 
 The more our business expanded, the higher they raised the 
 figures on their property. We were the workers. They held us 
 up for a good share of our profits. 
 
 Things got to such a pass that we could stand it no longer. 
 We were cramped for space, but could not get the space without 
 being charged an extortionate price. We explained the situa- 
 tion to the property-owners, but it was no use. Then we 
 determined on radical action. Seven years ago we moved our 
 plant to open land on the outskirts of the city, where there 
 was little or no population. 
 
 We fenced in several acres of land and proceeded to erect 
 buildings so as to bring our organization together in an eco- 
 nomical arrangement. When our new buildings were completed, 
 we abandoned the old plant. What do you suppose was the 
 result? All the buildings we formerly occupied are now on the 
 market, with no takers. By reason of our abandoning them 
 they have declined in value to the price they commanded before 
 my father began manufacturing in that little loft forty years 
 ago. The net decline represents about the amount we paid 
 in premiums and excess valuation. 
 
 Now, is it just that a manufacturer should be penalized 
 because he is industrious and because, through that industry, 
 he has to have more space for his plant? Why should he be 
 singled out? A railway or any other public service corporation 
 that has to have land for enlargement of its facilities or right 
 of way can, through the courts, bring condemnation proceedings 
 
112 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 in case owners of property are not willing to sell at a reason- 
 able price. Appraisers are appointed, and the railway or other 
 public service- corporation obtains the land it needs at something 
 like its market value. 
 
 Why should a railway have greater rights than a manu- 
 facturer? We were making machinery essential to society. 
 A railway does not perform a fundamental function other 
 than transportation, yet it is protected from the oppression of 
 real estate agents and land speculators. 
 
 We are to-day employing 2,300 men. In other words, our 
 business is a revenue-producer to the community to the extent 
 of our annual pay-roll. These 2,300 men are permanent resi- 
 dents of the city, but they would not be there if it were not 
 for the fact that our industry is established in that city. Ac- 
 cording to the last quadrennial appraisement it is estimated 
 that every man that moves in, or every child that is born in 
 the community, adds about $500 to the land value. This means 
 that our manufacturing plant has added $1,150,000 to the land 
 values of our city. 
 
 Now, considering three to a family instead of four, which 
 is the usual number, this brings the total up to $3,450,000. Our 
 payroll is a net revenue to the community, which goes from 
 the merchant to the jobber, and from the jobber to the manu- 
 facturer, and in turn to the farmer. It percolates through all 
 the channels of production and trade. 
 
 It is customary to consider that the manufacturing business 
 belongs solely to the man or the firm or the corporation which 
 controls it. But, as a matter of fact, it belongs to the commu- 
 nity as much as does the courthouse or the city hall. The fact 
 that I and my associates have title to the property does not 
 affect the community interest. 
 
 My father invested all his earnings back into the business, 
 in the improvement of our product, in the enlargement of our 
 facilities. My associates and I have continued the same policy 
 since ray father died. The plant is owned by those active in 
 the business, and none of us has anything, aside from this busi- 
 ness, except our homes and a few insurance poUcies. 
 
 The statistics of our city show that there is involved an 
 investment in machinery, lands, buildings, etc., of approximately 
 $1,000 to every man employed. About ten years ago we had a 
 
SINGLE TAX 113 
 
 strike, which, in loss of production and profits, importation of 
 strike-breakers and detectives, cost us $100,000. The cost of 
 this strike became known in the community through the news- 
 papers, and it was a common expression that we were a rich 
 concern and could afford it. In fact, that the loss of $100,000 
 meant practically nothing to us. 
 
 The fact that this was the only strike that we have had in 
 the forty years of our existence would indicate that we have 
 dealt with our employees justly. I wish we never had had this 
 one strike. It is one of my sorrows. As I look upon it now, I 
 was to blame in a large part. The men were to blame, too. 
 They were bent on making trouble. What I cannot forgive 
 myself for is that I did not maintain a closer relationship to 
 them, learn of their discontent earlier, and remedy the wrongs 
 that brought about the trouble. 
 
 I have told you that it was current report that we lost 
 $100,000 through that strike. We did not actually lose that 
 amount. The loss was to the community. We would have 
 invested that $100,000 in more machinery, more buildings, and 
 more business in order to employ more men. With this 
 $100,000 that was dissipated through the strike we would have 
 employed one hundred additional men, who would have brought 
 that much more revenue to the city. Now our pay-roll aver- 
 ages approximately $1,000 per year per employee. One hundred 
 additional men means that that strike cut $100,000 from the 
 total of what our pay-roll would have been. Thus the commu- 
 nity has lost that many dollars per year. Consider this for ten 
 years and you have $1,000,000 loss to the community. Consider 
 this compounded in the many ways in which such things ramify, 
 and you have a total that is not pleasant to contemplate. Do 
 you appreciate that the community has a decided monetary 
 interest in our plant? 
 
 In moving the 2,300 men to the open acreage which we 
 purchased, we thought we had settled one kind of our trouble. 
 We brought all our plant together, in something like an eco- 
 nomical arrangement, and this was a great relief to us. Much as 
 we rejoiced over this, we rejoiced still more in our proud 
 belief that the old gray wolf of the land speculator was not 
 looking in at our door any longer. We rejoiced too early. We 
 have another wolf at our door. This is a young one; an 
 
 10 
 
114 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 offspring of the one that preyed upon us when our manufacturing 
 plant was in the heart of the city. 
 
 We found that by moving 2,300 men to the open acreage in 
 the outskirts of the town we created land values around us. 
 A troop of speculators have trailed us. These, men are laying 
 out acreage property into town lots, selHng the lots to our men 
 and others who are attracted by the system of trade which 
 2,300 workers naturally would build up. We thought we were 
 establishing our plant on cheap land, yet to-day we find lots 
 adjoining our property selling on a basis of $50 per foot front. 
 The tax appraiser comes along and sees that these 40-foot lots 
 close to our plant and used for store property are selling at 
 $2,000. What do you suppose he does ? He estimates that if that 
 storekeeper's land is worth $2,000 a lot, our land is worth as 
 much, if not more, and we have been put on the assessment 
 roll according to that valuation. We are being punished for 
 that which we have built up. We have been fined for our 
 industry; we are punished for investing the earnings back into 
 our business. We put this money back into our business be- 
 cause we had pride in our achievement; because we gloried in 
 the fact that we were producing more and better goods for the 
 benefit of mankind than any other men in our land. We have 
 great pride in the big plant that has resulted from our efforts. 
 
 Money is not our only aim. We draw generously from our 
 earnings for our needs, but it has been the one aim of our lives 
 to increase and to broaden our business. This business has be- 
 come a monument to our families. We might have been selfish 
 and have prospered more. We have been producers, workers. 
 If, instead of being producers and workers, we had invested 
 our earnings in real estate and become parasites, we probably 
 would have done much better in a financial sense. 
 
 At first glance you would suppose that when the tax assessor 
 puts his valuation of $2,000 a lot on our land, and we pay the 
 increased tax, that ends it so far as we are concerned. But it 
 does not. The effect upon us, aside from the tax, is indirect, 
 but is more vital than the tax itself. As the land values in- 
 crease around our place, it is natural that the men who work for 
 us, and who live on these lands, will have to pay more rent or 
 more for their home, or higher taxes. The land around our 
 plant affects our pay-roll. Speculators are beginning to under- 
 
SINGLE TAX 115 
 
 stand that the price of this land to-day is less than it is going 
 to be five years from now. When our workmen buy from the 
 speculators who have grabbed up this land, or rent from those 
 who have put up houses, they must pay both principal and 
 interest. Their rents become higher and they have less for 
 food and clothing; they naturally will come to us for increased 
 wages. If they do not get the increase, they are likely to strike 
 and paralyze our industry. The price we pay for this strike is 
 the land speculator — a man who has not handed one dollar, 
 either in service or industry, to our community wealth, but has 
 fattened wholly by our productive industry. 
 
 We made one serious mistake, in view of the present evil 
 system of our tax laws, when we relocated our plant. We 
 should have acquired all of the land around our factory in order 
 to control the price, and then we should have sold it to our men 
 at a moderate cost. But even this would have been doing an 
 injustice, because we can provide a greater revenue to the 
 community and perform a higher duty to society by making this 
 investment in machinery and buildings. As I consider it now, 
 it probably was better to do as we did rather than protect 
 ourselves against the machinations of the land investor. 
 
 I moved our plant out into the country to escape real estate 
 and tax injustice. I have ilot escaped either. No man objects 
 to paying an honest or just tax, but he does object to an unjust 
 tax. Manufacturers throughout America have suffered as I 
 am suffering, and all the while they see crafty, clever men, who 
 are doing nothing for the world's progress, escaping an honest 
 tax on their property simply because they will not improve it. 
 For example, buildings in the downtown districts of the city 
 should pay the bulk of taxation, those nearest the center of 
 trade and traffic being assessed the highest. In our city, right 
 in the heart of the busiest section, you will find various one- 
 story structures, "taxpayers," they are called, built to provide 
 carrying charges until such time as the owner thinks it wise to 
 put up a fair-sized structure or a sky-scraper. These "tax- 
 payers" not infrequently adjoin some of the finest structures 
 in the city. The tax on the "tax-payer" is trifling in comparison 
 with the tax on the sky-scraper. In the same neighborhood, 
 too, there are a lot of superannuated buildings, structures that 
 were erected forty, fifty, sixty, and in some instances seventy 
 
ii6 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 years ago. Rents in them for offices are very high, but the 
 tax on these buildings is very low because the buildings are 
 not worth much. As a matter of fact, these superannuated 
 buildings are among the best revenue-producers in the city. All 
 land values are based on desirability, and in the case of the 
 mercantile section it is traffic that provides the element of 
 desirability. Naturally, each of our employees supplies a unit of 
 this traffic. If taxes were placed on the lands of these congested 
 sections, and laws passed that would relieve a man from a fine 
 for putting up a building and performing a social service, then 
 the owners of some of these superannuated buildings, and these 
 taxpayers who are holding the land simply for increased value, 
 would be forced to pull down those structures and put up ones 
 that would pay them revenue. Rents to merchants would be 
 cheaper by reason of the competition of many and more 
 tenantable buildings. Under a proper system of taxation there 
 would not be the inequality and injustice that there is to-day. 
 It seems to me that the people who perform useful functions to 
 society are burdened with the heaviest taxes, while a lot of 
 rich but indolent people live on unearned increment. 
 
 Our whole taxation system is wrong. There ought to be a 
 readjustment. Suppose I make a chair for my own use in my 
 own house. The community has no right to participate either 
 in its value or in its use, but the tax man comes along and says : 
 "This is a perfectly good chair. The man who is able to make 
 and sit in such a chair certainly is able to pay taxes." So he 
 assesses, say, five per cent of its estimated value, and as long 
 as the chair continues in use and I do not hide it, five per cent 
 of its value goes into the public till, until its entire value has 
 been absorbed in twenty years. 
 
 My enterprise and general desire to produce is dulled by 
 reason of the fact that the community takes away my product 
 in installments. The same principle is proved if the chair had 
 been made in a factory, except in this latter case it is not only 
 taxed as merchandise, but the buildings and the machinery of 
 the factory are taxed, all of which must be added to the final 
 selling price. The individual or the industry producing with 
 hands or brains is penalized. 
 
 The purpose of taxation is for public administration and for 
 public improvement. It is supposed to be for the good of all. 
 
SINGLE TAX 117 
 
 That which is for the good of all should be derived from that 
 which all produce, and that is the land values of the community. 
 Land values are made by population. They are socially created. 
 To my mind, the tax question is more important to the 
 American people than the tariff. Unjust taxation has hampered 
 the growth of many an industrial establishment and, I believe, 
 has ruined many a concern. It has driven hundreds of plants 
 away from one community to another, uprooted tens of 
 thousands of families, and done no end of wrong. The man 
 who solves this problem so that the inequalities and the injus- 
 tices of the present system are wiped out will do a great work 
 indeed. 
 
 Kansas City Times. March 13, 1912. 
 
 Tax System Created a Fortune. 
 
 In 1866 John H. Nagle of Seattle took the 160 acres just 
 east of Broadway in that city and north of Madison Street. 
 That it had no value then is shown by the fact that anyone 
 could have had it who thought it worth taking. In 1874 Nagle 
 became insane and was taken to Steilacoom, where he was left 
 at the expense of the taxpayers until 1897, when he died. 
 
 That his land had little value in 1866 is shown by the fact 
 that he traded five acres of it for a blind mule a short time 
 before this. A trustee of his .estate had been appointed by the 
 court when he became insane, who sold enough of it from time 
 to time to pay the taxes. The remainder in 1898 was worth 
 fully $300,000. 
 
 Now it is evident that this value was not created by John 
 H. Nagle, who was in an asylum. It was created by the people 
 of Seattle. Yet the city had to pay $11,000 to his estate to get 
 the three blocks on which the reservoir and Lincoln Park 
 Playground are situated. 
 
 It is also evident that when this $300,000 was given to 
 Nagle's nonresident heirs, who did nothing to earn it, that it 
 was taken from the people who did create it. Every man, 
 woman and child in Seattle was poorer because of this being 
 taken from them. If anyone gets without earning, others must 
 earn without getting. 
 
ii8 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Nebraska State Journal, Lincoln. October lo, igii. 
 What the Single Tax Advocates Claim for Their Theory. 
 
 We assert as a primary principle that all men are equally 
 entitled to the use of the earth : 
 
 Therefore, No one should be permitted to hold land without 
 paying to the community the value of the privilege thus 
 accorded; and from the fund so raised all expenses of govern- 
 ment should be paid. We could, therefore, abolish all taxation, 
 except a tax upon the value of the land exclusive of improve- 
 ments. This tax should be collected by the local government 
 and a certain proportion be paid to the state government. 
 
 This system of taxation would dispense with a horde of 
 tax gatherers, simplify government and greatly reduce its cost. 
 
 It would do away with the corruption and gross inequality 
 inseparable from our present methods. 
 
 It would relieve the farmer, the workman and the manu- 
 facturer of those taxes by which they are now unjustly bur- 
 dened, and take for public uses only those values due to the 
 public growth and improvement. 
 
 It would make it impossible for speculators to hold land 
 idle, and it would open unlimited opportunities for the 
 employment of labor and capital, which is essential to the 
 solution of the labor problem. 
 
 Briefly stated these are the fundamental principles of what 
 those who advocate it, call the Single Tax : 
 
 We propose to abolish all taxes save one Single Tax levied 
 on the value of land irrespective of the value of improvements in 
 or on it. 
 
 What we propose is not a tax on real estate, for real 
 estate includes improvements. Nor is it a tax on land for we 
 would not tax all land, but only land having a value irrespec- 
 tive of its improvements, and would tax that in proportion to 
 that value. 
 
 Our plan involves the imposition of no new tax since we 
 already tax land values in taxing real estate. To carry it out 
 we have only to abolish all taxes save that on real estate, and 
 to abolish all that which now falls on buildings or improvements, 
 leaving only that part of it which now falls on the value of the 
 bare land. This we would increase so as to take as nearly as 
 
SINGLE TAX 119 
 
 may be the whole of the economic rent, or what is sometimes 
 styled the "unearned increment of land values," 
 
 That the value of the land alone would suffice to provide 
 all needed public revenues, municipal, county and national, there 
 is no doubt. 
 
 From the Single Tax we may expect these advantages : 
 
 1. It would dispense with the entire army of tax gatherers 
 and other officials which present taxes require, and place in 
 the treasury a much larger proportion of what is taken from the 
 people, while, by making government simpler and cheaper, it 
 would tend to make it purer. It would get rid of taxes which 
 necessarily promote fraud, perjury, bribery and corruption, 
 which lead men into temptation, and which tax what the nation 
 can least afford to spare — honesty and conscience. Since land 
 lies out of doors and cannot be removed, and its value is the 
 most readily ascertained of all values, the tax to which we 
 would resort can be collected with the minimum of cost and 
 the least strain on public morals. 
 
 2. It would enormously increase the production of wealth — 
 
 (a) By the removal of the burdens that now weigh upon 
 industry and thrift. If we tax houses, there will be fewer 
 and poorer houses ; if we tax machinery, there will be less 
 machinery ; if we tax trade, there will be less trade ; if we tax 
 capital, there will be less capital; if we tax savings, there will 
 be less savings. All the taxes therefore, that we would abolish 
 are taxes that repress industry and lessen wealth. But if we 
 tax land values, there will be no less land. 
 
 (b) On the contrary, the taxation of land values has the 
 effect of making land more easily available by industry, since it 
 makes it more difficult for the owners of valuable land, which 
 they themselves do not care to use, to hold it idle for a larger 
 future price. While the abolition of taxes on labor and the 
 products of labor would free the active elements of production, 
 the taking of land values in taxation would free the passive 
 elements by destroying speculative land values, and preventing 
 the holding out of use of land needed for use. If any one 
 will but look around today and see the unused or but half used 
 land, the idle labor, the unemployed or poorly employed capital, 
 he will get some idea of how enormous would be the production 
 of wealth were all the forces of production free to engage. 
 
120 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 (c) The taxation of the process and production of labor 
 on the one hand, and the insufficient taxation of land values 
 on the other produces an unjust distribution of wealth, 
 which is building up in the hands 'of a few, fortunes more 
 monstrous than the world has ever before seen, while the 
 masses of our people are steadily becoming poorer. _ These 
 taxes necessarily fall on the poor more heavily than on the 
 rich; by increasing prices they necessitate larger capital in all 
 business and consequently give an advantage to large capitals ; 
 and they give, and in some cases are designed to give, special 
 advantages and monopolies to combinations and trusts. On the 
 other hand the insufficient taxation of land values enables men 
 to make large fortunes by land speculatipn and the increase 
 in ground values — fortunes which do not represent any addition 
 by them to the general wealth of the community, but merely the 
 appropriation by some of what the labor of others creates. 
 
 This unjust distribution of wealth develops, on the one 
 hand a class idle and wasteful, because they are too rich, and on 
 the other hand a class idle and wasteful, because they are too 
 poor — it deprives them of capital and opportunities which 
 would make them more efficient producers. It thus greatly 
 diminishes production. 
 
 (d) The unjust distribution which is giving us the hun- 
 dredfold millionaire on the one side and the tramp and pauper 
 on the other generates thieves, gamblers, social parasites 
 of all kinds, and requires large expenditures of money and energy 
 in watchmen, policemen, courts, prisons and other means of 
 defense and repression. It kindles a greed of gain and a wor- 
 ship of wealth, and produces a bitter struggle for existence 
 which fosters drunkenness, increases insanity and causes men 
 whose energies ought to be devoted to honest production to 
 spend their time and strength in cheating and grabbing from 
 each other. Besides the moral loss, all this involves an enormous 
 economic loss which the Single Tax would save. 
 
 (e) The taxes we would aboUsh fall most heavily on the 
 poorer agricultural districts, and thus tend to drive popu- 
 lation and wealth from them to the great cities. The tax we 
 would increase would destroy that monopoly of land which is 
 the great cause of that distribution of population which is 
 crowding people too closely together in some places and scatter- 
 
SINGLE TAX 121 
 
 ing them too far apart in other places. Families live on top of 
 one another in cities because of the enormous speculative prices 
 at which vacant lots are held. In the country they are scattered 
 too far apart for social intercourse and convenience, because 
 instead of each taking what land he can use, every one who 
 can, grabs all he can get in the hope of profiting by the increase 
 of value, and the next man must pass further on. Thus we 
 have scores of families living under a single roof, and other 
 famiUes living in dugouts on the prairies afar from neighbors — 
 some living too close to each other for moral, mental, or 
 physical health, and others too far separated for the stimulating 
 and refining influences of society. The wastes in health, in 
 mental vigor and in unnecessary transportation result in great 
 economic losses which the Single Tax would save. 
 
 These are the fundamental reasons for which we urge the 
 Single Tax, believing it to be the greatest and most funda- 
 mental of all reforms. We do not think it will change human 
 nature. That, man can never do ; but it will bring about condi- 
 tions in which human nature can develop what is best, instead 
 of, as now in many cases, what is worst. It will permit such 
 enormous production of wealth as we can now hardly conceive. 
 It will secure an equitable distribution. It will solve the labor 
 problem, and dispel the darkening clouds which are now gather- 
 ing over the horizon of our civilization. It will make undeserved 
 poverty an unknown thing. It will check the soul-destroying 
 greed of gain. It will enable men to be at least as honest, as 
 true, as considerate and as high-minded as they would like to be. 
 It will remove temptation to lying, false swearing, bribery and 
 law-breaking. It will open to all, even to the poorest, the 
 comforts and refinements and opportunities of an advancing 
 civilization. It will thus, so we reverently believe, clear the 
 way for the coming of that kingdom of right and justice, and 
 consequently of abundance and peace and happiness, for which 
 the Master told His disciples to pray and work. It is not 
 because it is a promising invention or cunning device that we 
 look for the Single Tax to do all this ; it is because it involves a 
 conforming of the most fundamental adjustments of society 
 to the supreme law of justice because it involves the basing of 
 the most important of our laws on the principle that we should 
 do to others as we would be done by. 
 
NEGATIVE DISCUSSION 
 
 Single Tax Explained: Summary, Pages 24-8. 
 George Fallon. 
 
 The Fels Fund Commission is tlie originator of the present 
 Single Tax movement in this country. 
 
 The Referendum League and the Equitable Taxation League 
 are subsidiary organizations of the Fels Fund Commission, 
 and these subsidiary organizations are officered by the same 
 men. 
 
 The Referendum League four years ago promoted and were 
 successful in having Initiative and Referendum adopted in 
 Missouri. Initiative was the first step towards Single Tax, 
 being promoted for that purpose, and therefore, the first step 
 towards the confiscation of land in Missouri. 
 
 In advocating Single Tax in Missouri, the Fels Fund Com- 
 mission is not simply interested in the state's system of taxation, 
 for few of these people have any property interest in the state. 
 Probably some members of the Commission have never been 
 in the state. The funds provided for the expense of this 
 Commission and its subsidiary organizations are largely, and 
 almost altogether, provided by men living outside of Missouri. 
 The same thing may be said as to the state of Oregon, the city 
 of Seattle, and other places where this Commission is trying to 
 have Single Tax adopted. 
 
 The question naturally arises. Why then is this Commission 
 interested in a system of taxation in Missouri and other places? 
 The reason is obvious : They seek to make use of this necessary 
 expense, taxation, by having it placed on land without limita- 
 tion, to gradually destroy the selling or commercial value of 
 land. In doing so, they make various side arguments in 
 support of Single Tax to accomplish this ulterior purpose. 
 They justify this Single Tax attempt to destroy "the commercial 
 value of land by claiming that in placing the burden of taxation 
 
124 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 on land, the incentive for any one to retain possession of any 
 more land than they can properly use, would be removed. Single 
 Taxers believe there is land enough for the actual needs of all 
 the people. They claim that land belongs to the community as 
 a whole, and that any one wanting the exclusive use of land 
 should pay the economic rent, or rental value, into the public 
 treasury for the use of the government. The Single Taxer 
 claims that in the state appropriating to its use economic rent, 
 Nature's wealth will be made use of for all, and that no govern- 
 ment should seek to attempt to provide for its expenses by 
 taxing any kind of wealth or property that is created by its 
 citizens, until they have first exhausted rent from land. 
 
 The Single Taxer seems to overlook the fact that the public, 
 through their government, sold out and out to its citizens the 
 public domain, that land has passed from one person to another, 
 generally at an increased price, and that the present owner of 
 land has paid the increased price to individual members of 
 society who have heretofore owned the land. This increased 
 price is what the Single Taxer terms "increment," and economic 
 rent might be properly termed the interest on increment ; so 
 that the individual members of society having as heretofore 
 said, received from time to time the increment to land, final 
 payment having been made by the present owners, it would 
 seem, therefore, that as individual members of society have 
 already been paid for increment, the public, through their gov- 
 ernment, having sold the land out and out, society is not 
 entitled to rent. 
 
 The proposed change in our system of taxation will not 
 enable any one to acquire land any better or any easier than it 
 can now be acquired. If a person desires a lot for its site 
 value or land for agricultural purposes, he can get either, and 
 without having to pay any higher rent to the present owner of 
 land than what they would have to pay to the state in economic 
 rent for the use of the same lot or farm; for, both values are 
 fixed by the same rule ; that is, what the exclusive use of a lot 
 or a farm is worth. But there is this difference : The present 
 owner could sell land out and out or lease, as may be desired, 
 at an agreed definite rental value, for one or a stated number 
 of years. A lessee would then know absolutely how many years 
 he could occupy the land and just what he would have to pay 
 
SINGLE TAX 125 
 
 each year. Under Single Tax, however, if he occupied a lot or 
 a farm, he would not know what rent he would have to pay 
 one year with another. The taxes might be so high that he 
 would be unable to pay them from the uses he was making of 
 the lot or farm. While there was an uncertainty as to what 
 the state was going to demand in taxes each year, improvements 
 would of necessity be prevented. 
 
 The following are the present sources of revenue which 
 would be materially effected by the adoption of the Single Tax 
 Amendments : 
 
 First — Tax on land. 
 
 Second — Tax on improvements. 
 
 Third — Tax on personal property. 
 
 Fourth — License and occupation tax. 
 
 Fifth— Poll tax. 
 
 Sixth — Special Improvement tax. 
 
 Under Single Tax, class l (land) would have to pay the 
 additional taxes paid by classes 2, 3, 4, S and 6. In cities and 
 municipalities this entire tax must be met or provided for from 
 rent on buildings or improvements and the tenant must pay 
 this increased rent, so that rent can not be reduced under Single 
 Tax but must be increased. 
 
 Why should we, by constitutional amendments, deprive our- 
 selves of the taxes on classes 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, five important 
 resources of revenue, when Nation, state and city are ever 
 searching for additional sources of revenue? Why repeal the 
 constitutional limitation on rates of taxation? Why close, bar 
 and seal the door of hope for holding down the tax rate? 
 
 Single Tax would not stimulate building in cities, because 
 the increased tax would have to be met in the form of an 
 increased charge. This increased tax would be far in excess 
 of the present amount of taxes now paid, on ground and build- 
 ing, plus the interest on the money necessary to buy the land. 
 
 The demands of state, county, district and city are ine.x- 
 orable; they must be paid. If, for any reason, the owner of a 
 building should be deprived of his income, (by loss of tenants 
 or otherwise) it would be but a question of time when he would 
 lose his property from this largely increased burden under 
 Single Tax, losing both his lot and his improvements. This 
 would make investment in improvements extra hazardous. 
 
126 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Agriculture would not be benefitted by confiscating to the 
 state's use, the rent of land and the destroying of the invested 
 interest in land ; for, while it is true land cannot be removed 
 from the state, the farmer can (and no doubt would) leave the 
 state and go to where he could and would receive all that he 
 now receives, which is all that the land will produce. Therefore, 
 agriculture will not be benefitted. 
 
 Manufacturing would not be benefitted within the state, be- 
 cause manufacturing depends upon prosperity, and agriculture is 
 the foundation and source of prosperity. 
 
 The cost of living cannot be cheapened by increasing the 
 taxes on an industry (agriculture) which produces the neces- 
 saries of life. 
 
 Therefore, rent would be increased instead of decreased, im- 
 provements would be retarded rather than encouraged, agricul- 
 ture would be enslaved rather than benefitted, manufacturing 
 would be handicapped instead of stimulated, the cost of living 
 would be increased instead of decreased under Single Tax, 
 while at the same time this iniquitous, treasonable and cruel 
 Single Tax would surely and certainly result finally in confiscation 
 of land which would mean, to many thousands of our people, the 
 loss of the net earnings and rainy-day-savings of a life time. All 
 of this loss and sorrow and trouble resultant from Single Tax 
 would come without any corresponding benefit to the people — the 
 only persons who would be benefitted would be a few Shylocks 
 and misers. 
 
 If neither agriculture, manufacturing, improvements or rent- 
 ers are to be benefitted, if the cost of living is to be increased, 
 and at the same time billions of dollars of wealth of a large 
 number of our citizens would be destroyed, without any corre- 
 sponding benefit to the rest of the citizens of the state, confisca- 
 tion of land is, therefore, a fool, fanatical and robbing proposi- 
 tion and "Fool, Fanatic and Robber" should be branded on the 
 epidermis of those advocating Single Tax, and they should be 
 either restrained from running at large or be driven to the desert 
 and allowed to die. 
 
SINGLE TAX 127 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 13:27-37. January, 1914. 
 Case Against The Single Tax. Alvin Saunders Johnson. 
 
 Land-values in the United States are conservatively estimated 
 at fifty billion dollars — not much less than one half of the total 
 private wealth of the country. The value of agricultural lands 
 represents about three fifths of this vast sum. The remaining 
 two fifths covers the value of mines and forests, railway rights 
 of way, water-powers, and urban business and dwelling sites. 
 The earning power attached to these land-values must amount 
 to between two and two and a half billion dollars annually. This 
 is practically one tenth of our aggregate private incomes, and, 
 if appropriated by the state, would cover adequately all our pub- 
 he needs ; provided, of course, that the public can manage the 
 lands as efficiently as they are now managed by their private 
 owners. 
 
 The farm lands of the United States are worth thirty billion 
 dollars, exclusive of all improvements. Two thirds of these lands 
 are owned by their cultivators, who number four million, and 
 whose holdings average five thousand dollars in value. Men of 
 this class are neither very rich nor very poor ; few of them have 
 wealth, including land and chattels, valued at less than five thou- 
 sand or more than a hundred thousand dollars. The remaining 
 third of the farm lands is cultivated by tenants. The owners are 
 of many different classes : active farmers who have acquired 
 lands at a distance; retired farmers; the business and professional 
 men of the towns and villages who have purchased farms as a 
 secure investment or as a retreat in old age. In the newer sec- 
 tions, where agricultural land may be expected to advance rapidly 
 in price, there are a few very large estates ; but this condition 
 is everywhere recognized to be transitional. Farm lands cannot 
 normally be a favorite investment with men of great wealth. 
 
 Practically the entire body of our agricultural lands, then, 
 is in the possession of the middle class. City and town lands 
 are not so widely distributed. As an instance of concentration 
 of ownership, we have the Astor estate, which looms mountain- 
 high in Single-Tax discussion. We have other large fortunes 
 in city realty. Nevertheless, not more than fifteen per cent of 
 our millionaires have the bulk of their fortunes invested in land. 
 Despite the evidences of concentration in New York and a few 
 
128 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 of our other largest cities, we. are justified in regarding urban 
 land as prevailingly a middle-class investment. Mines, forests, 
 water-powers, and railway rights of way are held, as a rule, 
 by large corporations; and while there are many instances of 
 the wide distribution of their shares, we may safely assume that 
 the majority interest is held by the very rich. 
 
 As the foregoing review indicates, the greater part of the 
 land-values which it is proposed to confiscate is the property 
 of the middle class. Middle-class holdings cannot possibly be 
 less than three fifths of the total, and may conservatively be put 
 as high as four fifths of it. 
 
 Not only is it true that land is prevailingly a middle-class 
 investment, but it is also true that it is probably the chief element 
 in the property of this class. Men of moderate means own be- 
 tween thirty and forty billion dollars' worth of land; it is highly 
 improbable that they own an equal amount of wealth in other 
 forms. And current economic forces are increasing the de^ 
 pendence of the middle class upon the land. Industrial concen- 
 tration is rapidly transforming the small business man into a 
 shareholder and an employee. As a shareholder he sees his hold- 
 ings shrink or expand under market influences which he cannot 
 so easily forecast as can the man of large wealth. Stocks which 
 he has purchased at high prices in a period of inflation of values 
 he is likely to sell at low prices in a panic, thus forfeiting a part 
 of his possessions to the men who are in a better position to meet 
 fluctuations than he. Land, on the other hand, is more easily 
 managed in small parcels than in large: There are no terrifying 
 fluctuations in its value. It is, moreover, not a sufficiently pro- 
 ductive investment to tempt men of large means. Accordingly 
 it is the one investment that the middle class can hold against 
 the encroachments of the rich. Indeed, the rich cannot hold it 
 against the middle class, except through the powerfvil traditions 
 of an ancient landed aristocracy, forfeited, at times, by legal 
 institutions, such as entail. 
 
 It has been urged by Single-Taxers that the relief from other 
 forms of taxation which would follow upon the introduction 
 of the Single Tax would amply compensate the man of modest 
 means for the loss of his land. This contention obviously in- 
 volves an astonishing overestimate of the burdens of ordinary 
 taxation. All taxes, other than those on land, aggregate less than 
 
SINGLE TAX 129 
 
 one half of the land-rent enjoyed by the middle class. And of 
 these taxes, not more than a third falls upon the middle-class 
 landowners. This class cannot therefore recover, in the way 
 of relief from ordinary taxation, more than one sixth of the loss 
 imposed upon it by the tax. 
 
 It is true that the middle-class land-owner bears, in addition 
 to ordinary taxation, the burden of high prices resulting from 
 the protective system. This burden, however, is the price which 
 the American people chooses to pay for an acceleration of the 
 rate of industrial development. Protection is no essential element 
 in the existing financial order ; any financier could devise for the 
 United States a revenue system containing no element of protec- 
 tion, which would be both adequate and economical. And any 
 protectionist could devise restraints upon foreign trade even 
 under the Single Tax. There is accordingly no escape from 
 the conclusion that all that the Single-Taxers can honestly prom- 
 ise the middle-class landowner is a relief of one dollar in taxation 
 for every six dollars of income confiscated. 
 
 The Single Tax is, then, essentially a device for the spolia- 
 tion of the middle class. In justice to the adherents of the 
 doctrine, however, it must be said that they are not, as a rule, 
 aware of this fact. Few of them have ever made any effort to 
 ascertain the existing distribution of the property which they 
 seek to confiscate. Those who do recognize the facts of the dis- 
 tribution of landed property hold nevertheless that the gains to 
 society at large will be sufficient to cover all costs. The poor, 
 they urge, will gain what the middle class loses. 
 
 If the poor are to benefit from the Single Tax, it must be 
 either through a reduction in the cost of living or through a 
 rise in wages. The removal of the custom and excise duties 
 would doubtless reduce the price of many articles of consump- 
 tion. We should still, however, have carriers charging what the 
 traffic will bear, and producers and retailers working under 
 gentlemen's agreements. These, we may assume, would absorb 
 no small part of the slack created by the remission of duties. 
 Whatever benefit came from the abolition of the duty on hides, 
 under the Payne-Aldrich act, was wholly absorbed before it 
 reached the buyer of shoes. The remission of the special taxes 
 on tobacco, after the Spanish War, had no perceptible effect on 
 retail prices. Not increased wages, but increased money profits, 
 
 11 
 
130 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 would be the most prominent effect of the Single Tax. That 
 this would be the probable result will appear to any one who will 
 put the problem in its simplest terms. An annual income of two 
 billion dollars is to be torn from the grasp of the middle class. 
 There is no automatic device for distributing this splendid spoil ; 
 the very poor and the very rich will have to strive for it. Who 
 will get it? 
 
 The foregoing analysis will appear to the convinced Single- 
 Taxer as both unfair and inadequate, in that it is confined to 
 conditions as they are, and takes no account of the wrongs of the 
 past and the possibilities of the future. Whatever class holds the 
 land now holds unjustly, according to the Single-Taxers. And 
 whatever class may have to be despoiled, its present pains are 
 of no weight when set against the infinite future advantages of a 
 society freed from the burden of parasitism. 
 
 We may ignore the contention that land cannot properly be 
 private property because its value is not traceable to labor. At- 
 tempts to reduce values to a labor basis can lead to only one 
 conclusion : communism. The Single-Taxers count themselves 
 formidable antagonists of Socialism, and cannot afford to coquet 
 with the labor-property premise. Furthermore, we need not 
 trouble ourselves with the fact that many land-titles have origi- 
 nated in- force or in usurpation. Too many other titles have 
 originated in similar processes, and the common sense of man- 
 kind admonishes us that all social justifications lie in the future, 
 not in the past. The kernel of the Single-Taxers' attack upon 
 land-values lies in the idea that such values are unearned. And 
 this means either that they have been acquired with less than 
 normal effort and sacrifice, or that such efforts and sacrifices as 
 have been directed toward their acquisition have been barren 
 of results useful to society. 
 
 It is a widely prevalent belief that investments in land have 
 been exceptionally profitable in the past. On our own frontier, 
 lands were secured from the government at a very low price, or 
 perhaps for only a nominal fee. Such lands have risen steadily, 
 and it is natural to suppose that these advances in value have 
 placed their fortunate possessors in the position of a privileged 
 class. The landowners, according to a common formula, have 
 enjoyed two incomes: the rent of their land, and the advance 
 in its value. 
 
SINGLE TAX 131 
 
 If this view were just, it would be hard to account for the 
 fact that in a new agricultural community it is not the landown- 
 ers, with their two incomes, who attract attention by their 
 rapid accumulation of wealth, but the bankers, the grain and 
 stock-buyers, the grocers and lumber-dealers, men who have to 
 content themselves with the single income of profit. What the 
 landowners have received is a dual income, not a double one. 
 If we have found business men willing to invest their capital 
 in trade and industry, the only satisfactory explanation of the 
 fact is that they believed that the annual profits of enterprise 
 are superior to all the gains from land. And this, no doubt, 
 is the rule. As a consequence of the universal belief that land- 
 values will rise, land is commonly overcapitalized. Men establish 
 themselves in unsettled regions long before general economic 
 conditions afford them a return commensurate with their toil and 
 privations ; after many years of waiting they sell their holdings 
 at prices which are seldom an adequate reward for their own 
 labors. Nevertheless, these prices are almost always in excess 
 of the capital value of the annual returns from the land. The 
 buyers look to the "unearned increment" to recoup them for the 
 loss of income involved in tying up their capital unproductively. 
 From a personal point of view, the "unearned increment" consists 
 of the wages of pioneering together with interest on capital sunk 
 in the price of the soil. Both the wages and the interest are, as 
 a rule, below the normal rate. Pioneers and buyers of land 
 are not of our shrewd business men, but are persons of modest 
 means, who, like the land reformers, vastly overestimate the 
 profits of landed investments. 
 
 It is of course true that many instances may be cited of 
 astonishing advances in land-values. Every one knows of city 
 lands that have doubled in value in a single year. Sometimes 
 such advances are confined to particular districts, affected by 
 new public improvements ; sometimes they are fairly uniform 
 throughout a city, as in a "boom town" of the West. It may be 
 a wise policy to make such chance gains contribute to the public 
 treasury, just as it may be a wise policy to place a tax upon other 
 abnormally successful speculative transactions. There is, how- 
 ever, no need of invoking the Single Tax in support of such a 
 policy. It finds abundant support in the accepted theories of 
 finance. 
 
132 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Recognition of the fact that excessive speculative gains do 
 occasionally appear in the real-estate field should not, however, 
 lead us to the conclusion that all advances in real estate are of 
 such character. On much the greater part of our lands, urban as 
 ■well as agricultural, the "unearned increment," together with the 
 rent, is hardly sufficient to make up a normal return on the capi- 
 tal invested in the land. If, then, there is a reason for taxing 
 away the future "unearned increment," that reason does not con- 
 sist in the fact that the landowners form a privileged class. 
 
 It can hardly be denied that the landowners as a class have 
 acquired the values in their possession at a cost in labor and 
 sacrifice fairly comparable with those who have been rewarded 
 by property of equal value in other forms. If, however, no one 
 has been willing to incur the sacrifice necessary to acquire a 
 grist-mill, we should have had no grist-mills. If no one had ever 
 incurred sacrifice to acquire title to land, should we not still 
 have the land? It is such a comparison as this that leads to 
 the frequent assertion that the private ownership of land exer- 
 cises no useful social function. 
 
 The issue looks simple, at first sight. Private enterprise made 
 the mill ; private enterprise did not make the land. But the con- 
 trast is fallacious. A wilderness, however fertile, is of no social 
 significance. The land that serves as the foundation of our 
 economic life is the land under the plough or in meadow or 
 pasture, and rendered accessible to markets by highways, canals, 
 and railroads. If we had administered our lands from the 
 beginning according to Single-Tax principles, when would 
 our western forests have been cleared, our prairies transformed 
 into fields of wheat and corn? Not in decades, but in cen- 
 turies. 
 
 There was a time when the typical American pioneer sought 
 land that was free, in the true sense of the term — land which he 
 might use as long as he pleased and abandon at a whim. This 
 man did not seek values, nor did he produce them. He cleared 
 the land of game and Indians, and made easier the path of the 
 economic pioneer, the man who put the land under cultivation 
 and made it yield its fruits, not for his benefit alone, but also 
 for the more thickly settled East and for the countries of Europe. 
 The economic pioneer was in search of a fortune. He would not 
 have been content with the prospect of bare wages, in the form 
 
SINGLE TAX 133 
 
 of the raw products of the soil. For the frontier never yielded 
 wages commensurate with its hardships. 
 
 It was not free land, but land that was certain to rise in value, 
 that attracted the millions of men from our own East and from 
 Europe to the edge of civilization. The transformation of the 
 Western wilderness into an empire of farms was the work of the 
 ■'unearned increment." One who wishes to see the unearned in- 
 crement performing a similar work to-day has only to visit the 
 Canadian Northwest. What has induced the hundreds of thou- 
 sands from our own comfortable and prosperous Middle West 
 to cross the border and quarter their families in pine shanties 
 on the blizzard-swept plains? The lure of the unearned incre- 
 ment. Lands purchasable at ten dollars an acre which may 
 be expected to rise to fifty dollars. 
 
 If the Single-Tax principle had been in operation from the 
 beginning of our history, what would have been the course of 
 our Western development? With the state as universal land- 
 lord, all that the West could have promised the settler would 
 have been the wages of his labor. To compensate for all the 
 sacrifices involved in pioneer life, the wages would have had to 
 be made very high. And this means that the opening of new 
 lands would necessarily have waited upon the time when the 
 pressure of population in the older centres and the increasing 
 miseries of the poor should expel some of .their number to the 
 frontier. Under such a condition of development, Kentucky 
 would doubtless still be a dark and bloody ground, and the 
 Ohio forests a haunt of outlaws. Buffaloes would still range 
 the Louisiana Purchase, and the Canadian Northwest would 
 remain for several centuries to come an asset of the Hudson Bay 
 Company. Slavery would still be the most prominent feature 
 of our social system, and our greatness as a nation would be a 
 matter for future ages to achieve. 
 
 It was the unearned increment which opened the West and 
 laid the basis for our present colossal industrialism. It was 
 the unearned increment which created a vast surplus of food- 
 products and raised the curse of periodic famine from Western 
 civilization. The exuberant fertility of the Mississippi Valley 
 lifted millions of men from poverty and quickened the life of 
 the whole Occident. There are, of course, those who will say 
 that this was not worth while; that human life was more satis- 
 
134 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 fying under the ancient condition of well-defined classes, some 
 secure in their superiority, others inured to their lot. Such 
 considerations lie entirely beyond the scope of the present paper. 
 All that is necessary for our purpose is to indicate that the un- 
 earned increment — that supposedly functionless element in our 
 distributive system — has played an extraordinarily active part 
 in building up our modern industrialism. 
 
 If the unearned increment has already completed its work, 
 it is, perhaps, the natural prey of a state which recognizes neither 
 vested interests nor the claims of past services to present re- 
 wards. Ethical and political reasons for opposing the confiscation 
 of land-values may still persist; but the principal economic 
 ground for opposing such a policy^ falls away if the unearned 
 increment is now socially inert. If our lands will be as well 
 cultivated, our cities as rapidly improved, under the Single Tax 
 as they are under existing conditions, we cannot say that the 
 proposed confiscation is economically indefensible. -^^ 
 
 American agriculture is not yet ready to dispense with the 
 unearned increment. Our four million independent farmers 
 represent the more intelligent, the more efficient, and the more 
 provident of our rural population. Able men among the ten- 
 ants and the hired laborers are only transiently in those classes : 
 their qualities destine them to become independent farmers. 
 Now, what are the annual earnings of the independent farmer? 
 On an average, $600. This sum, which is less than the city 
 laborer of equally good economic quality earns with his bare 
 hands, includes not only the reward of the farmer's labor, but 
 interest on a capital, in land and improvements, averaging $7500. 
 What wonder that there is a steady movement of the rural pop- 
 ulation to the cities ? The fact to be explained is that the move- 
 ment is not universal. 
 
 And the explanation is to be found in the unearned increment. 
 To his meagre $600 of money income the independent farmer 
 adds the increase in the value of his land. This item he usually 
 overestimates, and thus makes out of it a powerful motive for 
 remaining on the land, producing wheat and meat for the con- 
 sumption of the cities. However high the present prices of 
 food may seem to the city-dweller, they are not so high as they 
 would be if agricultural products were not, in large measure, 
 a by-product of the unearned increment. 
 
SINGLE TAX 135 
 
 Increase in the value of land cannot continue indefinitely to 
 supplement the farmer's income. In parts of the East lands 
 have already ceased to rise. Those are the regions of the 
 abandoned farms. In parts of the Middle West lands, while 
 still rising slowly, are approaching a stationary level. Those are 
 the regions from which the most enterprising men are emigrat- 
 ing to Canada, where the promise of unearned increment is still 
 rich. Sooner or later practically all our lands will cease to rise. 
 When we shall have attained to this condition the money returns 
 to labor, and capital in agriculture will have to be made equal to 
 wages and interest in the cities. Or rather, agricultural returns 
 must be made superior to those attainable in the cities, to com- 
 pensate for the isolation and monotony of rural life. This 
 readjustment will be effected through advancing prices of agri- 
 cultural products and through restricted opportunity in the cities. 
 
 If we desire to enter at once upon this process of readjust- 
 ment, we have only to enact the Single Tax. The more enter- 
 prising of the agricultural population, despoiled of their prop- 
 erty and of an essential part of their income, will cease to pro- 
 duce food for the city laborers, and will enter into competition 
 with them for jobs. What will follow is easy to forecast: in- 
 creasing misery in the cities, advancing agricultural prices, and, 
 in the end, a new equilibrium. Yet the Single Tax has been 
 seriously advanced as a sure means of alleviating poverty. 
 
 In recent years the Single-Taxers have concentrated their 
 attacks upon urban land-values. These, they assert, are purely 
 parasitic and act as a dead weight upon building operations. The 
 grasping landlord, according to this doctrine, is ultimately re- 
 sponsible for the congestion of the slums, and hence for much 
 of the vice and crime of the city. The population of the metro- 
 politan district of New York is increasing at the rate of two hun- 
 dred thousand a year. Every person in this vast army con- 
 tributes something to land-values. In what way have the owners 
 of land earned this additional value? Certainly, there appears 
 to be ground for the charge of parasitism. 
 
 If the new values distributed themselves uniformly among 
 passive landowners, the charge of parasitism would hold. They 
 do not, however, distribute themselves uniformly. Competing 
 landowners are forced to struggle for them; and the struggle is 
 not barren of social gains. There are clearly defined currents 
 
136 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 of life and business in the metropolitan district, and no man 
 can forecast with certainty the direction they will take. But if 
 provision is to be made for the housing of the new population 
 and for the accommodation of the new business, many builders 
 must stake their money upon their guesses as to the future di- 
 rection of the currents. Otherwise the city would suffer chroni- 
 cally from an intolerable congestion. 
 
 Those whose guesses prove correct find their buildings oc- 
 cupied at high rents, or salable at prices in excess of costs. This 
 means that an "unearned increment" attaches to the site, since 
 building capital itself can hold abnormal value. Those who have 
 guessed wrong must content themselves with "writing off" a part 
 of their capital. Now, it is proposed by the Single-Taxers to 
 appropriate to the state the fruits of building speculations that 
 prove successful, while leaving to private enterprise the fruits 
 of unsuccessful speculations. And on such a basis they expect 
 a "boom" in building. 
 
 There is no difficulty in predicting the results of such a policy. 
 Men would build only after it became practically certain that 
 their buildings would be in demand. Construction would follow 
 increase in population, instead of anticipating it, as at present. 
 The evils of over-building, of which real-estate journals so fre- 
 quently complain, would be effectually controlled. But these 
 are not the evils which chiefly oppress the tenant class and harass 
 the city reformer. 
 
 It is well known to everyone conversant with the facts of 
 realty-promotion that it is in the "boom towns" and the active 
 sections of a large city, where land-values are rising rapidly, 
 that over-building most frequently occurs. Whence, then, do the 
 Single-Taxers derive their doctrine that advancing land-values 
 not only do not hasten the progress of improvement, but actu- 
 ally retard it? Not from observation, but from theory. And 
 they may justly demand that their contentions be met on a 
 rigorously theoretical ground. 
 
 The Single-Tax theory premises vacant land advancing in 
 value at a rate corresponding to normal interest on an equiva- 
 lent capital investment. Why should the owner of such land 
 improve it? Most of the vacant land in cities is actually increas- 
 ing in value at such a rate — a fact that is logically deducible from 
 the accepted principles of real-estate valuations. Now, have 
 
SINGLE TAX 137 
 
 we not here an explanation of the fact that thousands of parcels 
 of land in our cities are held unimproved, while in certain other 
 quarters of the same cities human beings are packed ten in a 
 room? The Single-Taxers assert that we have. 
 
 If, however, we examine the matter closely, we shall see 
 that while there is nothing to compel the owner of such land to 
 improve it, he can afford to do so the moment that prospective 
 rentals will cover interest on his building capital alone. And 
 there is no conceivable state in which he can afford to improve 
 if the rentals will pay less than this. He cannot do this even 
 if the land is free, without selling-price or rent. The Single 
 Tax therefore cannot produce a state more favorable for build- 
 ing than that which exists where the land is rising at the rate we 
 have assumed. 
 
 If a builder must buy land which is not rising, he cannot 
 afford to build unless prospective rentals will pay interest on 
 his land investment as well as on his building investment. If he 
 builds on ground leased from a private person or "single-taxed" 
 by the state, he must extort from his tenants rentals covering 
 both the ground-rent and interest on his investment. 
 
 The Single-Taxers, it is true, promise immunity from tax- 
 ation of the building; and where the value of land is low, this 
 immunity would be a sufficient offset to the ''unearned increment" 
 of which they would deprive the builder. Where the land-value 
 represents a large part of the total investment, as in most of 
 our cities, the offset would be insufficient. An honestly ad- 
 ministered Single Tax could not produce conditions so favorable 
 to building as now exist wherever land-values are rising rapidly. 
 
 It is almost a waste of time to inspect the Single-Tax project 
 for destroying the slum. It is the value of land that forces 
 the city builder to occupy every possible foot of ground space, 
 to pile story above story, to subdivide each story into the smallest 
 apartments and rooms that can be tenanted by living man. It 
 is a matter of indifference whether the value of land takes the 
 form of a capital sum, as is now commonly the case, or of an 
 annual rental, an occasional form now, which would be universal 
 under the Single Tax. The reasons for economizing ground 
 space are the same in either case; except that the Single Tax 
 promises immunity from taxation on the building and so would 
 offer an inducement to covering still more of the ground space. 
 
138 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 and pushing the stories still higher toward the sky. The Single- 
 Taxers propose, then, to relieve urban congestion by means 
 which would increase the number of persons to be sheltered by 
 each unit of roof. 
 
 Private property in land, as we have seen, serves an im- 
 portant purpose in production, so long as land-values continue 
 to advance. Such advances cannot continue forever. The time 
 will come when agricultural land will bear a constant value, 
 based upon its annual productive capacity. The cities, too, will 
 in the end reach the limit of their growth, and an unearned in- 
 crement will no longer attach to site-values. When such a time 
 comes, there will be no good reason why the state should not 
 become the universal landlord, provided that it has evolved to the 
 point where it can manage so colossal a landed estate more 
 efficiently than can private landowners. Just as there will be no 
 good reason why the state should not take over the railways, 
 mines, and industries of the nation as soon as it is able to ad- 
 minister those enterprises more effectively than private business 
 men. It may be noted in passing that the administration of the 
 land, under a tenant system, would represent a heavier task for 
 the state than the administration of railways, mines, and in- 
 dustries combined. 
 
 Let us assume, however, that the state is ready to take over 
 its landed domain. Should this be effected through confiscation, 
 as the Single-Taxers propose, or through purchase? The pur- 
 chase of the land may be rejected as impracticable. For the 
 present price represents not only the capital value of its rent, but 
 also the anticipated value of all the unearned increments of the 
 future. The net revenue that the state would secure from its 
 lands would probably never equal the interest on the public debt 
 created in the process of acquiring the land. 
 
 If the lands are to be confiscated, the act must be justified 
 by its social consequences. What these would be is already 
 sufficiently clear. The proposed land reform would deprive the 
 middle class of its chief possession : the possession on which 
 its economic independence mainly rests. And this would mean, 
 practically, the elimination of the middle class as a political factor. 
 
 It was Aristotle who first pointed out the dependence of 
 political stability and personal freedom upon a powerful middle 
 class. To the present day no authority on political science has 
 
SINGLE TAX 139 
 
 arisen to deny the existence of such a relation. It was the middle 
 class of England that established constitutional liberty. It was 
 the middle class that destroyed the ancien regime in France and 
 laid the foundations of a liberal state. Our own Constitution 
 is essentially a middle-class document, and it is the middle class 
 that defends it against attack. 
 
 We may contrast our confidence in the stability of our own 
 liberal institutions with our skepticism of attempts to introduce 
 similar institutions in countries in a different stage of social 
 development. It is hard to believe that constitutionalism can be 
 more than a name in Russia and Turkey, or that democracy in 
 Mexico can signify anything but a cloak for force. It is not 
 that we doubt the political capacity of Slavs and Moslems and 
 Mexicans. But those nations lack the chief prerequisite of po- 
 litical freedom and order : a vigorous middle class. 
 
 Not all will agree, it is true, that the liberal regime is the 
 best conceivable political order. The Socialists are especially 
 violent in their attacks upon it. And every Socialist recognizes 
 that constitutionalism and free enterprise are bound up with the 
 fortunes of the middle class. Eliminate the middle class, and 
 there will remain no serious obstacle to the progress of Socialism. 
 Accordingly, it is difficult to understand the impatience which 
 the Sociahst usually manifests toward the Single-Taxer. The 
 latter, indeed, is not a Socialist, but he is laboring valiantly to 
 produce the conditions under which alone Socialism has any 
 chance whatsoever of success. Transform our four million 
 independent farmers into tenants of the state; despoil an equal 
 number of our middle-class townsmen of their one solid posses- 
 sion, and the expropriation of the remaining private owners of 
 property will be easily accomplished. Despite the sentimental 
 antipathies of their respective adherents, then, the Single Tax 
 and Socialism are closely related. Their relation is that of means 
 and end. 
 
140 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Seiigman, Edwin R. A. Essays in Taxation. 
 
 Chapter IIL The Single Tax.* 
 The General Theory 
 
 The general economic theory on which the demand for the 
 Single Tax is based may be summed up in a few words. Land is 
 the creation of God; it is not the result of any man's labor; no 
 one, therefore, has a right to own land. Increase in the value 
 of land is due mainly to the growth of the community; like the 
 land itself, it is not the result of any individual effort; it is an 
 unearned increment which properly belongs to society. More- 
 over, private property in land is undoubtedly the cause of all 
 social evils. It therefore becomes the duty of the government 
 to take what rightfully belongs to the whole community. Every 
 one may still retain the result of his own labor; but the value 
 of the bare land, the economic rent, must be taken for the 
 state. In this way, and in this way alone, can the social problem 
 he solved. 
 
 In order to attain a basis for this discussion, it is necessary 
 to allude to the two fundamental doctrines on which the plan is 
 founded. The first is the underlying theory of private property; 
 the second is the theory of the relation of the individual to the 
 public purse. 
 
 In the first place, the Single Tax theory of property is the 
 labor theory — the theory that individual human labor constitutes 
 the only clear title to property. It would be interesting, were 
 there space, to trace the genesis of this doctrine. The Romans, 
 as is well known, had an entirely different theory — the occupa- 
 tion theory, based on the right of the first occupant. Against 
 this rather brutal doctrine, which in the early middle ages 
 paved a way for intolerable abuses, the philosophers advanced 
 the labor theory, hoping thereby to bring about a reform in 
 actual institutions. .The labor theory went hand in hand with 
 the doctrine of natural rights, which was the result of an 
 earnest attempt to abolish the abuses of the ancien regime, and 
 which came to a climax in the eighteenth century. Modern 
 jurisprudence and modern political philosophy, however, have 
 incontestably proved the mistake underlying this assumption 
 
 * Reprinted by permission of the author. 
 
SINGLE TAX 141 
 
 of natural law or natural rights. They have shown that na- 
 tural law is simply the idea of particular thinkers of a particu- 
 lar age of what ought to be law. These particular thinkers, 
 indeed, often influence the social consciousness, as they in turn 
 are influenced by it, so that natural law may be called law in 
 the making. But at any given time it represents simply an 
 ideal. Whether that ideal will approve itself to society depends 
 on a variety of circumstances, but chiefly on the question whether 
 society is prepared for the change. Just as the modern method 
 of jurisprudence is the historical method, so also the modern 
 theory of property may be called the social utility theory. 
 
 The social utility theory says that just as all law, all order 
 and all justice are the direct outgrowths of social causes, and 
 just as private ethics is nothing but the consequence of social 
 ethics, so private property is to be justified simply by the fact 
 that it is the last stage of a slow and painful social evolution. 
 At the outset, property, and especially property in land, was 
 largely owned in common. It was only through the gradual 
 progress of economic and social forces that private property 
 came to be recognized as tending on the whole to further the 
 welfare of the entire community. The social utility iheory does 
 not, of course, mean that what has once been must always be. 
 It is not a reactionary doctrine which looks upon all that is as 
 good. It simply maintains that the burden of proof is always 
 upon the party urging the change ; and that when the change 
 advocated is a direct reversal of the progress of centuries, and 
 a reversion to primitive conditions away from which all history 
 has travelled, the necessity for its absolute proof becomes far 
 stronger. The nationalization of land is a demand which, in 
 order to win general acceptance, must be based on theories in- 
 dependent of the doctrine of natural rights. 
 
 Even though we accept the theory of natural rights, we need 
 not therefore accept the Single Tax. If it be said that the value 
 of land is wholly the work of the community, and that therefore 
 every one has a natural right to it, how can we logically deny 
 that the value of any so-called product is, at least partly, the work 
 of the community? Mr. George bases his defence of private 
 property in commodities other than land on the labor theory. 
 Yet individual labor, it may be said, has never by itself produced 
 anything in civilized society. Take, for example, the workman 
 
142 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 fashioning a chair. The wood has not been produced by him ; 
 it is the gift of nature. The tools that he uses are the result 
 of the contributions of others ; the house in which he works, the 
 clothes he wears, the food he eats (all of which are necessary in 
 civilized society to the making of a chair), are the result of the 
 contributions of the community. His safety from robbery and 
 pillage — nay, his very existence — is dependent on the ceaseless 
 co-operation of the society about him. How can it be said, in the 
 face of all this, that his own individual labor wholly creates any- 
 thing? If it be maintained that he pays for his tools, his clothing 
 and his protection, it may be answered that the landowner also 
 pays for the land. Nothing is wholly the result of unaided in- 
 dividual labor. No one has a right to say : This belongs abso- 
 lutely and completely to me, because I alone have produced it. 
 Society, from this point of view, holds a mortgage on everything 
 that is produced. The socialists have been in this respect more 
 logical ; and that perhaps explains why the movement to which 
 Mr. George gave such an impetus in England and elsewhere is 
 fast changing from one in favor of land nationalization into one 
 for the nationahzation of all means of production. The socialists, 
 indeed, as well as Mr. George, are in error, because the premises 
 of each are wrong. It is not the labor theory, but the social 
 utility theory, which is the real defence of private property. But 
 if we accept the premises of the Single-Taxers, we are inevitably 
 impelled to go further than they do. The difference between 
 property in land and property in other things is from the stand- 
 point of individual versus social effort simply one of degree, not 
 of kind. 
 
 The other fundamental doctrine of the advocates of the Single 
 Tax is the theory of benefit, — the doctrine that a man ought to 
 contribute to public burdens in proportion to the benefits that he 
 receives. The theory is that, since the individual gets a special 
 advantage from the community in the shape of unearned incre- 
 ment he ought to make some recompense. To this contention, 
 two answers may be had : first, that the benefit theory of taxa- 
 tion is inadequate; and second, that, even if it were true, it 
 would not support the Single Tax. Let us take up these in turn. 
 
 The payments made by the individual to the government are 
 exceedingly diverse in character. Where the government acts 
 simply as a private individual, in performing certain services for 
 
SINGLE TAX 143 
 
 the citizen, the payment is a price. The government does some- 
 thing; the individual gives something. Again, even after com- 
 mon interests have developed, the individual may ask the gov- 
 ernment to do some particular thing for him, to confer some 
 privilege upon him. He may wish to get married or to run a 
 cab. For this particular privilege it is perfectly proper that the 
 government should make a charge — known in modern times as 
 a fee or toll. Again, the government may be at considerable ex- 
 pense in laying out a new street, the result of which will be to 
 enhance the value of a particular plot of ground. There is then 
 no reason why the government should not demand that the 
 owner of this plot should defray, at all events in part, the cost 
 of this improvement. This is called special assessment. In all 
 these cases the individual receives an undeniable, special benefit 
 as the result of a special expenditure made by the government. 
 The principle of give and take, therefore, is applicable. 
 
 On the other hand, there are certain actions of the govern- 
 ment which interest the whole community, and from which the 
 individual receives no benefit, except what accrues to him inciden- 
 tally as a member of the community. If the government under- 
 takes a war, no one citizen is benefitted more than another. If 
 the government spends money for cleaning the main thorough- 
 fares, for erecting tribunals, or for patrolling the city by police, 
 it cannot be claimed that any one individual receives a measur- 
 able, special benefit; all are equally interested in good govern- 
 ment. When payment is made for these general expenditures — 
 and such a payment is called a tax — the principle of contribu- 
 tion is no longer that of benefits or of give and take, but of 
 ability, faculty, capacity. Every man must support the g'overn- 
 ment to the full extent, if need be, of his ability to pay. He does 
 not measure the benefits of state action to himself first, because 
 these benefits are quantitatively unmeasurable ; and secondly, be- 
 cause such measurement implies a decidedly erroneous concep- 
 tion of the relation of the individual to the modern state. 
 
 The principle of benefit, moreover, would lead us into the 
 greatest absurdities. If we accept it, we must apply it logically ; 
 we must not restrict its beneficent workings to the landowner. 
 The poor man, according to the theory of benefit, ought to be 
 taxed more than the rich, because he is less able than the rich 
 man to protect himself. Ability to pay is not only the ideal basis 
 
144 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 of taxation, but the goal toward which society is steadily work- 
 ing. It lies instinctively and unconsciously at the bottom of all 
 our endeavors at reform. When we say that indirect taxes are 
 on the whole unfair to laborers, we mean that they are less able 
 than the wealthier portion of the community to pay the tax. 
 When we say that a corporation with large receipts should pay 
 more than one with small receipts, we do so because we know 
 that its ability to pay is greater. The principle of privilege or 
 benefit is, therefore, not the basis of taxation. It is the principle 
 away from which all modern science and progress have been 
 working. It is founded on a false political philosophy, and it can 
 result only in a false political economy. 
 
 But even if we accept the principle of benefit or opportunity, 
 it will not justify the demand for the Single Tax. This question 
 however, is so intimately interwoven with the problem of the jus- 
 tice of the Single Tax that we shall discuss it a little further on 
 under that head. 
 
 Fiscal Defects 
 
 One of the great aims of every sound financial system is to 
 bring about an equilibrium of the budget — that is, to avoid a 
 surplus as well as a deficit. Now, while many taxes may be sud- 
 denly lowered, not many of them can be made to give a sud- 
 denly increased yield. One of the cardinal principles of taxa- 
 tion, therefore, is elasticity, in order to secure which requires two 
 conditions. In the first place, the source from which the tax is 
 derived must be of such a nature that an increase of the rate 
 will always mean an increase of the yield. There should be in 
 the source of taxation a reserve power which can be drawn upon 
 in case of need. Secondly, the revenue should be secured from a 
 number of objects, so that the shrinkages or deficits temporarily 
 due to the one class may be made good by the increase or sur- 
 plus revenues of the other class. Among the elastic taxes is the 
 income tax, and it is well known that in English finance one of 
 the chief functions of this income tax is to preserve the equilib- 
 rium of the budget. So again, certain taxes on commodities are 
 often utilized for this purpose. The Sing'Ie Tax on land values, 
 however, is bitterly inelastic ; for since, according to the theory 
 of its advocates, the total rental value is to be taken from the 
 
SINGLE TAX 14S 
 
 landowners, the Single Tax cannot be increased. Where nothing 
 has been left, nothing more can be taken. In the case of an 
 emergency there would, therefore, be no possibility of increasing 
 the revenues. Even if the total land value were not taken, it 
 would still remain true that a direct tax on the unimproved value 
 of land is far more inelastic than other taxes; for when the 
 supply is constant and the price is fixed only by conditions of de- 
 mand, the selling value as well as the rental value is subject to 
 far more fluctuations than in commodities where the supply may 
 be diminished at pleasure. Futhermore, as we have seen, a Sin- 
 gle Tax of any kind, whether on lands or on anything else, would 
 be less elastic than a system of taxes where one may be played 
 ofi against the other. Lack of elasticity is a serious defect in the 
 Single Tax. 
 
 Another fiscal weakness of the Single Tax is that it inevitably 
 intensifies the inequalities resulting from unjust assessments. 
 We all know how difficult it is to carry out laws which provide 
 for equal assessments. Under the real estate tax in the United 
 States, for example, the assessors are usually sworn to rate the 
 property at its actual or selling value, and the selling value of a 
 piece of land or of a house is comparatively easy to ascertain ; 
 yet it is notorious that in no two counties, nay even in no two ad- 
 joining pieces of property, is the standard of assessment the 
 same. Thus the report of the Iowa Revenue Commission of 
 1893, states that realty in Iowa was assessed at from seventeen 
 to sixty per cent of the true value. It is well known, too, that 
 in the city of Chicago adjacent plots of real estate are assessed 
 at percentages of ridiculously varying degree. Now, it is mani- 
 festly not so easy to assess the land values, — that is, the bare 
 value of the land irrespective of all improvement, — as it is to 
 assess the selling value of a piece of real estate. For instance, 
 an acre of agricultural land near a large town may be worth 
 $200; but if used for truck-farming, considerably more than $200 
 may have been expended on it during the last century or two. 
 Who can tell how much of the $200 present value is the value of 
 the bare land and how much is to be assigned to the labor ex- 
 pended? Under the present method we have at least a definite 
 test — the selling value ; under the new method we should have 
 no test at all. There is every likelihood, therefore, that the diffi- 
 
 12 
 
146 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 culties of the present situation would be intensified. Moreover, 
 under the present system, inadequate as it is, there is always 
 a chance that the imperfect enforcement of a particular tax law 
 will be offset by the assessment of other taxes, direct or indirect. 
 Under the Single Tax not only would there be more difficulty than 
 at present in making the original assessment, but the inequality 
 of the assessment, which is inseparable from all democratic 
 methods, would be seriously intensified by the very fact that it is 
 a Single Tax. 
 
 Political Defects 
 
 The adoption of the Single Tax means the total abolition of all 
 custom houses and import duties ; it means that there can be no 
 such thing as a system of protection to home industry. Many 
 would, it is true, favor the Sing'Ie Tax precisely on this account ; 
 but there are some self-styled "Single-Taxers" who believe that 
 as a matter of national policy there is a justification for import 
 duties. Whatever we may think of the economic justification of 
 import duties, it must be recognized that they may sometimes 
 form an important political weapon. It is clear, however, that 
 leaving the question of protection entirely aside, the adoption of 
 the Single Tax will make it impossible to utilize import duties 
 for political, fiscal or other purposes. 
 
 In the second place, the adoption of the Single Tax would 
 render it impossible for governments to utilize the taxing power 
 as a political or social engine in any other way. For instance, 
 the United States government now imposes a tax on the circu- 
 lation of state bank-notes in order to bring about certain de- 
 sirable results in the currency situation. Under the Single Tax 
 this would be impossible. Again, the United States government 
 levies a high tax on opium, not for the purpose of revenue, 
 but in order to discourage the consumption of opium ; and it 
 also assesses a tax on oleomargarine, primarily in order to en- 
 sure the purity of butter. Under the Single Tax, all such efforts 
 would be impossible. Finally, to mention only one other ex- 
 ample, one of the chief methods of dealing with the drink ques- 
 tion is through the imposition of high liquor licenses, the fiscal 
 importance of which is only secondary. Under the Single Tax 
 we should be prevented from attacking the problem in that way. 
 Governments have always made use of the taxing power to regu- 
 late and to destroy, as well as to yield a revenue. Were the 
 
SINGLE TAX 147 
 
 Single Tax to be adopted, this salutary power would be entirely 
 taken away. 
 
 Thirdly, the political results of the Single Tax would be dan- 
 gerous in another way. So far as there is any truth in the asser- 
 tion that in democracy it involves some risk for a small class 
 to pay the taxes and for a large class to vote them, it is es- 
 pecially applicable to the Single Tax. Since the "unearned in- 
 crement " would flow of itself, silently and noiselessly into the 
 treasury, there would be no need of a budget; and the sense of 
 responsibility in the citizens would be perceptibly diminished. It 
 is well known that liberty has been intimately bound up with the 
 contest against unjust taxation; the constitutional history of 
 England is to a large extent a history of the struggle of the 
 people to gain control of the treasury; the American Revolution 
 was precipitated by a question of taxation ; the French Revolu- 
 tion ivas brought about primarily by the fiscal abuses of the 
 ancieii regime. To take away, then, from the vast majority of 
 citizens the sense of their obligation to the government, and to 
 divorce their economic interests from those of the state, would, 
 especially in a democracy like that of America, be fraught with 
 serious danger. 
 
 Ethical Defects 
 
 The advocates of the Single Tax love to base their arguments 
 on the ground of justice. In this they are certainly wise; for 
 even though all other arguments were in its favor, if the justice 
 of the Single Tax could be successfully impugned it would be 
 foredoomed to failure. Let us then ascertain whether it is 
 indeed true that the Single Tax is an equitable method of 
 taxation. 
 
 The two great canons of justice in taxation are universality 
 and uniformity or equality. If anything has been gained by the 
 revolutions of the eighteenth century and by the growing public 
 conscience of the nineteenth, it is a recog'nition of the fact that 
 all owe a duty to support the state, that a system of wholesale 
 exemptions is iniquitous, and that all taxpayers should be treated 
 according to the same standard. Judged by any or all of these 
 tests, can it be seriously maintained that the Single Tax is an 
 equitable form of taxation? 
 
 We have seen that the theory of natural rights is not ade- 
 
148 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 quate ; we have learned that the principle of opportunity does not 
 correctly portray the relations of the individual to the state. 
 Even if the theory of unearned increment vifere true it would 
 not by any means justify the Single Tax on land values. In the 
 first place, land values do not always or necessarily increase ; 
 and, secondly, there are a great many other values which do in- 
 crease, and which increase mainly by the operation of forces 
 which the owner of the property neither creates nor controls. 
 
 Land values do not always or necessarily increase. Thus, 
 in the testimony given before the Rapid Transit Commission in 
 the city of New York in March, 189S, one of the witnesses 
 spoke of several long avenues being lined with the graves of 
 property-owners. What did he mean ? Simply that ten, or 
 twenty, or thirty years ago, certain individuals had invested 
 in the land, in hopes of a rise in value, just as people invest in 
 bonds or stocks or other securities. Instead of values rising, 
 however, they remained stationary or even decreased; while, in 
 the meantime, the accumulated taxes and assessments upon this 
 non-productive property completely ruined many of the inves- 
 tors. It is indeed true that in most growing cities land values in 
 certain localities will increase ; but it is equally true that there 
 are always sections in such cities where, for obvious reasons, 
 land values decrease. These facts are familiar to all observers 
 in large cties. Moreover, in some European countries the rental 
 value of the land, as a whole, is less to-day than it was a few 
 decades ago. The tax on land value would there yield only a 
 precarious revenue, since there has been no unearned increment, 
 but a decrement. 
 
 More important still is the fact that even though land values 
 often increase, similar increase in value is not by any means 
 confined to land. Let us ask any one whose mind is not be- 
 fogged by the mist of erroneous enthusiasm : Who are the 
 rich men of the world to-day ? How has by far the greater 
 part of our huge individual fortunes been acquired? Let us 
 study the way in which men have become millionaires, especially 
 in the United States. The usual cause is some fortuitous con- 
 Juncture of events, some chance happening due to no one's labor, 
 but to a turn in the wheel of fortune — call it speculation, call it 
 luck, call it by any name we will. How have most of the fortunes 
 in Wall Street been made? Who is responsible for the increased 
 
SINGLE TAX 149 
 
 value of investments ? Who can say that the successful manager 
 of the ring, the corner, the pool and the trust has worked out his 
 salvation through his own industry? Land speculation is only a 
 part, and a very small part, of the sum total. If it be claimed 
 that the fortunate speculator deserves his fortune because of 
 sagacity and foresight, why deny these attributes to the land- 
 owner? It can, of course, not be denied that wealth has been 
 acquired by thrift and industry; but it remains true that most 
 of the very large fortunes that strike the common observer are 
 due to these incalculable turns in the wheel of fortune, and that 
 the so-called unearned increment of land values forms only a 
 small share of these total gains. 
 
 It must not be forgotten that the modern age is the age of 
 speculation, differing from' former periods in that " time specu- 
 lation " has supplanted " place speculation." No economist 
 would to-day venture to deny that speculation has its legitimate 
 uses, and that the stock and produce exchanges of the present 
 day play an indispensable part in the economy of our complex 
 industrial society. But speculation is largely responsible for 
 modern fortunes ; and land speculation is simply a species in the 
 larger genus. Value is a social phenomenon, not an individual 
 phenomenon. A house in a desert is worth nothing ; a house in 
 a small town is worth more; a house in a large city is worth 
 still more. The house is in part the product of labor, but the 
 greater demand increases the value. A newspaper also is more 
 profitable in a city than in a village. Thus, if social environment 
 gives a value to bare land, the same social environment in- 
 creases the demand for other commodities. If it be said that 
 land differs from other things in that it is a monopoly, the an- 
 swer is irresistible that if there is any one thing which distin- 
 guishes the modern age, it is the development of industrial mon- 
 opoly; we live in a period of pools and trusts and economic 
 monopolies of all kinds. So important, indeed, have these be- 
 come that modern economic theory has been compelled to sup- 
 plement the old doctrine of value which was based on the as- 
 sumption of free competition by a newer and more comprehen- 
 sive theory, especially applicable to all these modern forms of 
 monopoly price. These monopoly profits cannot be reached by 
 a tax on land values. 
 
 On what possible theory of justice, then, shall we tax the man 
 
 aly a 
 
 imed / 
 
 fhis \J 
 
ISO SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 who has invested $100,000 in land which the next year appre- 
 ciates fifty per cent; and, on the other hand, exempt the man 
 who has invested $100,000 in the stock of the Sugar Trust, 
 which the next year may also enhance fifty per cent? Why 
 should the earnings invested in land be taxed and the earnings 
 invested in the Sugar Trust be wholly untaxed? Why should 
 the earnings invested in land be taxed and the earnings invested 
 in any railway bond be wholly untaxed ? 
 
 It might, indeed, be claimed that the railway stockholder will 
 be affected by a tax on the land owned by the corporation : but it 
 is difficult to see how the railway bondholder can be reached by 
 any tax on land values except in so far as the ultimate security 
 for his debt may be afifected. As the bonded indebtedness of the 
 railways to-day far exceeds their capital stock it appears that, 
 even in the case of these industries whose increasing values are 
 largely due to the influence of the community, the majority of 
 investors would scarcely be touched. In the great mass of in- 
 dustries, of which the Sugar Trust is an example, where the land 
 owned by the corporation is of exceedingly small consequence as 
 compared with its other assets, it is plain that a tax on land 
 values would not reach even the stockholders or the owners 
 proper. Almost every industry, moreover, is dependent for its 
 increasing profits upon the development of the community, that 
 is, upon the increasing demand for the product. Land- rises in 
 value because there are more people who want to occupy that 
 land ; the earnings of the Sugar Trust have increased chiefly be- 
 cause there are more people who want sugar. In each case the 
 increased returns are due primarily to social causes ; in each case 
 we have a monopoly. One is a natural monopoly and the other 
 is an economic or artificial monopoly ; but, for all practical pur- 
 poses, there is no distinction between them. To confiscate the 
 capital invested in land with the chance of the land either falUng 
 or rising in value, while exempting absolutely the capital in- 
 vested in corporate or industrial securities, is but a travesty of 
 justice. It will be impossible to convince the common people 
 that so-called unearned increments are confined to land. As a 
 matter of fact the " unearned increment " of land is only one in- 
 stance of a far larger class. 
 
 We must, on the contrary, plant ourselves firmly on the basis 
 of faculty or ability to pay. So far as a man receives special op- 
 
SINGLE TAX 151 
 
 portunities from the community, which undoubtedly increase his 
 ability to pay, they should be taken into account in framing any 
 scheme of taxation. But let us not single out one special oppor- 
 tunity, because it strikes the eyes of urban observers, while we 
 neglect all the other opportunities which are equally, or almost 
 equally, the result of social forces. The Single Tax on land 
 values 'is unjust; first, because opportunity is not the only ele- 
 rrient that must be taken into account ; and, secondly, because, 
 even though it were, revenues from land are by no means the 
 only form — nay, not even the most important form — of the re- 
 sults of special opportunity. The Single Tax is unjust because it 
 is exclusive and unequal. 
 
 But, even though the Single Tax were absolutely just in theory, 
 it would not yet follow that it would be practicable. Let us, 
 therefore, come to the final part of our inquiry. 
 
 Economic Defects 
 
 These considerations which have often been overlooked, may be 
 discussed from three points of view : first, the economic effect 
 of the Single Tax on poor and new communities ; second, the 
 economic effect on farmers and the agricultural interests in gen- 
 eral; third, the economic effect on rich communities. 
 
 In the first place, what would be the effect on poor and new 
 communities? 
 
 When an American farmer goes to the virgin soil of the 
 Northwest and stakes out his farm, he finds virtually no land 
 value at all; land can be secured by any one on the payment 
 of a merely nominal sum. The only property of these new 
 farming communities consists of the log cabins erected on the 
 land ; of the tools, implements and beasts of burden used for 
 tilling the land; and of the personal effects and money that are 
 in many cases brought along by the farmers. The great mass 
 of their possessions, therefore, consists of personalty. In so far 
 as there is any real property at all, it is only to an exceedingly 
 slight extent composed of land values. There is practically no 
 land value. How then, it may be asked, can taxes be raised in 
 this new community ? How can the roads be laid out, the school- 
 houses be erected, and the other improvements be effected? 
 Since land values are non-existent, a tax on- zero must be zero. 
 Even if any land values exist, the total confiscation of them 
 
152 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 would not suffice to defray any considerable part of the neces- 
 sary expenditures. For proof, take any of the assessors' reports 
 m the new American states, and it will be found that, contrary 
 to the conditions of the rest of the country, the assessed personal 
 property far exceeds in value the total assessed real estate. For 
 instance, in i8go personalty was to total realty in Montana as 
 58 to SS millions of dollars, in Wyoming as 20 to 13 millions, in 
 New Mexico as 28 to 15 millions, in Arizona as 18 to 10 mil- 
 lions. Compare these figures with the older sections, as New 
 York or Pennsylvania, where the proportion was as 382 to 3404 
 millions and 618 -to 2042 millions respectively. If we are to 
 abolish not only the tax on personalty, but all that part of the tax 
 on realty which is not drawn from land values, it can easily be 
 seen how impossible it would be to carry on government in 
 these sections. A tax on the land values would be lamentably 
 inadequate. 
 
 What has been said of new communities applies almost 
 equally well to poor communities, that is, to communities made 
 up largely or almost entirely of farm lands and of an agricul- 
 tural population. The "Single-Taxers" themselves claim that 
 land values amount to practically nothing in the farming dis- 
 tricts. We shall see below the fallacy in this general contention ; 
 but so far as the community is a poor one there is undoubted 
 truth- in the statement that land values are trivial. If this is true, 
 how can the expense be defrayed by a Single Tax on land values? 
 In the testimony recently taken before the tax commission of 
 Massachusetts, one of the Single-Taxers who was testifying as to 
 the situation in certain rural townships was asked the question : 
 How will it be possible for this poor town, in which there is 
 very little land value, to raise its taxes? The witness was com- 
 pelled to reply that it would be impossible for the community to 
 do so, and he suggested that the expenses of the poor communi- 
 ties should be defrayed in large part from the revenues of the 
 rich communities. 
 
 This remedy is somewhat visionary ; for with the American 
 theories of local government, it would be almost impossible to 
 induce certain sections in the community to assume the burdens 
 of other sections. We are all acquainted with the continual 
 bickerings in our state taxation, due to the efforts of the richer 
 counties to escape paying more than their proportion of the 
 
SINGLE TAX 
 
 IS3 
 
 general state taxes; and we have recently seen the discontent 
 aroused by an attempt in the shape of the federal income tax 
 to make certain wealthy sections of the country pay the larger 
 part of the revenue of the national government. Where these ef- 
 forts have given rise to so much dissatisfaction, it is obviously 
 out of the question to suppose that the purely local expenses of 
 any community will ever be defrayed by the efforts of other com- 
 munities. In local matters, at least, every county and town must 
 stand on its own feet ; and if the Single Tax is unable to de- 
 fray even the local expenses of a poor community, not to speak 
 of its share of general state or federal expenses, it is clearly 
 beyond, the realm of practical politics. In poor communities, as 
 well as in new communities, the Single Tax would be an impossi- 
 bility. 
 
 Let us consider, next, what would be the effects of the Sin- 
 gle Tax on farmers in general. One of the claims of the advo- 
 cates of the system is that it would relieve the farming popula- 
 tion of the burden of taxes, now weighing upon them. A careful 
 consideration of the facts shows, however, that this claim is un- 
 founded, and that, on the contrary, the only result of the Single 
 Tax would be to make the farmers pay more than they are pay- 
 ing to-day. This can be proved by recent statistics. 
 
 In only a few states is a distinction made in the assessments 
 between land and improvements on land. Let us take, as a 
 typical instance, Ohio county, in West Virginia, in which the 
 city of Wheeling is situated. In the auditor's report for 1892, 
 we find the following figures : — 
 
 Proportion 
 of Ohio 
 County. 
 Ohio Entire Per 
 
 County. State, cent. 
 
 Value of buildings on lots $8,544,010 $22,840,511 
 
 Value of building on lands 671,795 14,371,855 
 
 Total value of buildings $9,225,805 $37,212, .566 25 
 
 Value of town lots without buildings 4,409,152 14,453,321 
 Value of land without buildings 1,678,962 95,771,281 
 
 Total value of all land without 
 
 buildings $ 6,088,114 $110,224,502 51/2 
 
 Total value of lands, lots and 
 
 buildings 15,313,919 147,685,972 101/3 
 
 Value of per.sonalty 6,187,710 51,707,093 12 
 
 Present total assessments $21,50],62tl $198,958,920 lOVa 
 
 Population 41,000 763,000 514, 
 

 Ratio of 
 
 Value of 
 
 land values 
 
 improve- 
 
 to total 
 
 ments on 
 
 real estate. 
 
 real estate. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 $ 1,283,265 
 
 89 
 
 1,037,103 
 
 92 
 
 2,327,705 
 
 88 
 
 82,584,775 
 
 70 
 
 242,388,163 
 
 76 
 
 154 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 In other words, whereas Ohio county now pays ten and one- 
 half per cent of all taxes, and would pay about the same if real 
 estate alone were taxed, if the Single Tax were introduced it 
 would pay only five and one-half per cent of the total taxes, or 
 about one-half as much as at present. If the large towns would 
 have to pay so much less, of course the farming districts would 
 have to pay so much more. The improvements in the towns are 
 worth more than the value of the bare land ; while in the coun- 
 try districts the reverse is true. 
 
 As another example let us take California. In the comptrol- 
 ler's report for 1893, we find the following figures : — 
 
 Value of 
 real estate. 
 Countv (i.e. bare land) 
 
 Colusa $ 10,649,318 
 
 Merced 11,222,179 
 
 Tulare 17,258,612 
 
 San Francisco 193,872,645 
 
 Total State 757,980,207 
 
 We thus see that while in the city of San Francisco improve- 
 ments equal thirty per cent of the total real estate value, in 
 some of the country districts .improvements are only ten or fif- 
 teen per cent of the total. Taking the state as a whole, land 
 values equal seventy-six per cent of all real estate, while in San 
 Francisco land values are only seventy per cent of all real 
 estate. To levy the Single Tax would, therefore, make San Fran- 
 cisco pay less, and some of the country counties far more, than 
 at present. 
 
 Again, let us call attention to the report of the Commission on 
 Valuation, made in 1892 to the Pennsylvania Tax Conference, 
 which is probably the most careful attempt yet made to distin- 
 guish land values from improvements. We find the following 
 figures : — 
 
 Value of 
 
 Value of land. improvements. 
 
 Philadelphia county $ 357,007,936 $ 646,244,284 
 
 Purely agricultural land in Phila- 
 delphia county 21,610,429 3,813,605 
 
 Entire state, all land 1,881,334,522 1,754,525,949 
 
 Entire state, agricultural land 725,485,439 245,494,072 
 
 The proportion of land values to total valuation of all prop- 
 erty is, in the county of Philadelphia, thirty-six per cent; in the 
 agricultural counties of Sullivan and Greene, eighty-one per 
 
SINGLE TAX iSS 
 
 cent and seventy-five per cent, respectively ; and in the whole 
 state, fifty-two per cent. The Commission concludes : "As a 
 rule, in agricultural counties the land values are the greatest, as 
 would be expected; while in manufacturing counties and those 
 having large cities, the value of the improvements is equal to 
 that of the land, or greater." 
 
 Let us now choose some Western states. In the report of the 
 auditor of Colorado for 1894 we find the following figures : — 
 
 Value of agricultural and grazing^ land, irrespective of 
 
 improvements $36,907,810 
 
 Value of improvements 7,492,022 
 
 Value of town and city land, irrespective of improve- 
 ments 63,080,205 
 
 Value of improvements 34,788,941 
 
 In other words, in the towns improvements constitute about 
 one-third of the total values ; whereas in the country, improve- 
 ments are only about one-sixth of the total. 
 
 As to Montana we find, in the report of the Board of Equali- 
 zation for 1894, the following figures : — 
 
 Value of city and town lots $29,362,754 
 
 Value of improvements on same 15,156,115 
 
 Value of land 17,493,680 
 
 Value of improvements on same 7,287,887 
 
 In Lewis and Clarke county, the home of the largest city in 
 the state, the total value of all land was $11,397,860; that of im- 
 provements, $5,269,300. In some of the agricultural or grazing 
 counties, however, the value of the land was far higher in pro- 
 portion to the improvements ; in Meagher county, for example, 
 land was $1,821,385, while improvements were only $629,054. 
 Most striking of all, in this very same county, in the case of ag- 
 ricultural property, the figures were, land $1,218,474, improve- 
 ments $266,824 ; while in the town lots the figures were, bare 
 land $602,911, improvements $362,375. In other words, not only 
 are improvements proportionately less in the rural counties, but 
 even in these rural counties by far the larger proportion of the 
 improvements are found in the little towns, as compared with the 
 farming or grazing land proper. 
 
 In the state of Washington, the State Board of Equalization 
 agreed on the following figures for 1893 • — 
 
 Value of land, exclusive of improvements $ 87.527,472 
 
 Value of improvements 8,970,908 
 
 Value of city and town lots 101,889,377 
 
 Value of improvements 29,585,930 
 
156 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 In Utah, Salt Lake county, the seat of the chief city, assessed 
 in 1893, real estate, exclusive of improvements, at $31,347,670; im- 
 provements, at $9,483,141. In rural counties like Rich coimty and 
 Cache county, the figures w^ere, in the one case, realty $527,666, 
 improvements $81,445 J in the other case, realty $3,771,810, 
 improvements $915,614. Here again, the more densely settled the 
 township, the greater in proportion is the value of the improve- 
 ments. 
 
 Finally, in North Dakota, the State Board of Equalization has 
 fixed the valuation for 1894 at these remarkable figures :^ 
 
 Value of land, exclusive of improvements $55,887,303 
 
 Value of improvements 2,608,016 
 
 Value of town or city lots 4,400,642 
 
 Value of improvements thereon 4,756,331 
 
 In all these cases — and they might be multiplied ad infinitum 
 — it is seen that the value of the improvements is, on the whole, 
 greater in the urban than in the rural districts. To many this 
 will be a surprise, because they are apt to be blinded by the im- 
 mediate facts about them. The Single Tax advocate generally 
 lives in the city, and sees before him a city lot, each foot of 
 which will sell for hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars. 
 The town lot, he is apt to exclaim, is worth hundreds of times 
 as much as a piece of land in the agricultural districts. This is 
 perfectly true ; but it proves nothing as to the comparative ability 
 of their owners to pay taxes because it overlooks a point of the 
 greatest importance. When we compare urban with agricultural 
 land values, we do not compare foot with foot, but total units 
 with total units. Thus, an acre of land in New York City may 
 be worth a thousand times as much as an acre of land in the 
 country; but it must be remembered that there are many thous- 
 and times as many acres in the country as there are acres in New 
 York City. 
 
 A lot in New York may be worth ten thousand dollars, but 
 a farm of five hundred acres in the country may also be worth 
 ten thousand dollars, exclusive of improvements. We must, 
 therefore, compare, not the value per foot in the New York 
 lot with the value per foot in the country farm, but we must 
 compare the value of the New York lot with the value of the 
 country farm. The farmer who has paid ten thousand dollars 
 for his farm, and has then proceeded to improve and cultivate it, 
 
SINGLE TAX iS7 
 
 will not be satisfied, when the assessor taxes him, and exempts 
 all the business men, house-owners and security holders in the 
 adjoining village; he will not be satisfied with the statement that 
 the owner of a ten-thousand-dollar lot in New York City pays 
 a hundred times as much per front foot. He will be apt to re- 
 ply that it makes no difference to him whether the New Yorker's 
 ten thousand dollars is taken away; but he objects to his own 
 ten thousand dollars being taken away, while his neighbors in 
 the village, who are far richer than he, pay no taxes at all. In 
 short, while attention is directed to the fact that land values are 
 undoubtedly less per acre in the country than in the city, it is for- 
 gotten that the number of acres in the country is so many times 
 larger than the number of acres in the cities that the total land 
 values in the country will form a large part of the whole. More- 
 over, we have seen that the value of improvements is greater in 
 the towns than in the country. In the country the farm-house 
 is built for five hundred dollars ; in the city the fine stone man- 
 sion or steel business edifice is erected at a cost of thousands 
 or hundreds of thousands of dollars. If, therefore, all im- 
 provements were to be entirely exempted, the only result of a 
 tax on land values would be to make the farmers pay more than 
 they do at present. It is not denied that as between the general 
 property tax as actually administered and a tax on real estate 
 only, the fataer would be benefited by the adoption of the lat- 
 ter. For personal property is assessed, chiefly in the agricultural 
 communities. The remedy, however, consists not in taxing 
 only real estate, but in striving to reach the abilities of the owners 
 of personal property by some other method than that of the an- 
 tiquated general property tax. But even assuming that this re- 
 form cannot be effected, what the farmers would gain by the 
 abolition of the personal property tax, they would lose and far 
 more than lose, as we have seen, by the total exemption of all 
 improvements. 
 
 No wonder the farmers realize that this will ruin them. Im- 
 munity from indirect taxes would be dearly purchased at such a 
 price; for it would result in the destruction of the one class 
 above all others upon which our prosperity rests — the class of 
 independent small farmers. As long as the United States re- 
 mains pre-eminently an agricultural community, it is not likely 
 that the Single Tax will become a practical question. 
 
158 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Thirdly, and finally, let us consider the economic effects of 
 the Single Tax in rich urban communities. 
 
 It is contended by the Single Taxers, with special reference to 
 the advantages claimed as likely to accrue to the tenement-house 
 population of the large cities, that the introduction of their sys- 
 tem would bring about the social millennium. It is supposed 
 that if we abolish the tax on improvements, that is, on houses, 
 the vacant lots will be built over as if by magic, rents will fall, 
 the wages of the workmen will rise, and a period of general 
 prosperity will be ushered in. 
 
 It may be asked, in the first place, where all this additional 
 capital which is to be invested in houses is coming from. There 
 is no fund floating about in the air which can be brought to 
 earth simply by the imposition of the Single Tax ; the amounts 
 to be laid out in houses must be taken from the capital now 
 invested in some other form of productive enterprise. The 
 amount of loanable capital in the money market at any one time 
 is definitely fixed. Even deposits in banks are already invested, 
 for the most part, in mortgages or in corporate securities ; that 
 is, they are already utilized for productive purposes. What is 
 put into new houses will, therefore, simply be so much taken 
 away from other productive employments. 
 
 It may be asked next, how the rents of our tenement-house 
 population will be reduced? The theory that a tax on houses 
 is shifted to the consumer or tenant is true enough, provided 
 that the tax be exclusive — that is, provided that nothing be 
 taxed except houses. If, on the contrary, the house tax is sim- 
 ply a part of a wider system of taxation ; if other forms of 
 property are assessed like investments in land and in personal 
 property ; if a corporation tax is imposed to hit the investors in 
 corporate securities ; or if we have an income tax which is to 
 reach general profits, — in all these cases the very conditions of 
 the theory according to which a house tax is shifted disappear. 
 To the extent, then, that the house tax is not a Single Tax, the 
 tendency for it to be shifted will be diminished. The only re- 
 sult, in this direction, of the Single Tax would be, as a matter of 
 fact, that people would pay their rent to the state instead of to 
 private individuals. We hear a great deal about the unoccupied 
 lands held for speculative purposes in large cities ; but it may 
 safely be affirmed that south of Forty-second Street in the city 
 
SINGLE TAX iS9 
 
 of New York — the home of the major part of the tenement- 
 house population — not one-fiftieth of one per cent of the build- 
 ing lots lie idle, and of these some lots are occupied as coal 
 yards, and some adjoining factories or large establishments are 
 used for storage purposes. How then would the Single Tax re- 
 lieve the inhabitants of the slums? They will not go to the 
 suburbs where there is an abundance of land, for the same rea- 
 son that they do not go there now. Rent in the suburbs is at 
 present considerably less than in the slums, which are neverthe- 
 less crowded. The average workman plainly prefers to be near 
 his work, and to enjoy the social opportunities of contact with 
 his fellow-workmen, evenings as well as day-time. Above all, 
 he cannot afford the expenditures of time and mo.ney, neces- 
 sary for conveying the various members of his family to and 
 from the suburbs. Even assuming, therefore, that there was 
 some magic fund to cover the suburban lots with houses, the 
 rents in the slums would scarcely be affected. 
 
 Finally, we may ask how the wages of the workmen are to be 
 increased by the Single Tax. Wages can be increased only 
 through an increase in capital or through an increase of the effi- 
 ciency of the laborer. Taxation in itself cannot accomplish either 
 of these results. To turn economic rent over to the state can- 
 not increase capital one whit, nor can it augment the efficiency 
 of the laborer. Not only can the Single Tax have no influence 
 on the wages of labor, but as we have seen it cannot decrease the 
 rentals of the tenement-house population. The whole fair dream 
 of economic felicity thus resolves itself into mere mist, into mere 
 nothingness ; the tenement-house population would derive as 
 little advantage as the American farmer from the Single Tax. 
 
 So far as there is any truth in the doctrine that land in or near 
 cities is largely held for speculative purposes, the difficulty can 
 be met by the enforcement of now existing laws. The tax laws 
 of the American states everywhere instruct the officials to assess 
 property at its true or selling value, but it is notorious that un- 
 improved lots are, as a rule considerably undervalued as com- 
 pared with those on which improvements have been erected. If, 
 then, we simply enforce the laws as they exist, it will be far more 
 difficult for any one to hold land on speculation. But the desired 
 purpose may be accomplished without invoking the aid of the 
 Single Tax. 
 
i6o SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Furthermore, so far as there is an element of truth in the 
 idea of unearned increment as applied to urban real estate, the 
 problem is already, to a large extent, solved in America by the 
 system of special assessments which takes for public purposes, 
 and precisely at the time of its creation, the increased value 
 which may properly be said to be due to any positive action on 
 the part of the community. By enforcing the tax laws as they 
 exist to-day and by extending the law of special assessments to 
 all the cases which are properly referable to the principle of 
 benefits, we shall do as much as is under existing conditions 
 either practicable or equitable. 
 
 Conclusions 
 
 We have studied the Single Tax from different points of view ; 
 and we have seen that it is defective fiscally, politically, morally 
 and economically. We have learned, first, that it would be in- 
 elastic, and that it would intensify the inequalities resulting 
 from unjust assessments; secondly, that although itself proposed 
 chiefly from social considerations it would prevent the govern- 
 ment from utilizing the taxing power for other social purposes, 
 and that it would divorce the interests of the people from those 
 of the government; thirdly, that it would offend against the 
 canons of universality and equality of taxation, and that it 
 would seriously exaggerate the difference between profits from 
 land and profits from other sources ; and finally, that it would 
 be entirely inadequate in poor and new- communities, that it 
 would generally have an injurious influence on the farmer, and 
 that even in the large urban centres it would exempt large 
 sections of the population without bringing any substantial relief 
 to the poorer classes. 
 
 It is clearly impossible to discuss in this place the wider 
 claim of the single-taxers, that the application of their scheme 
 would introduce the social millennium. If economists thought 
 that the distinguished single-tax leader had solved, this prob- 
 lem, they would enthrone him high on their council seats ; they 
 would reverently bend the knee and acknowledge in him a mas- 
 ter, a prophet. But when he comes to them with a tale that is as 
 old as the hills ; when he sets forth in his writings doctrines that 
 have long since been refuted ; when in his enthusiasm he seeks 
 to impose a remedy which appears to them as unjust as it is one- 
 
SINGLE TAX i6i 
 
 sided, as inconsistent as it is inequitable, — they have a right to 
 protest. This is not the first time that some enthusiast has sup- 
 posed that he has discovered a vv^orld-saving panacea. The rem- 
 edy for social maladjustments does not lie in any such lopsided 
 idea; the only cure is the slow, gradual evolution of the moral 
 conscience of mankind. We cannot solve the labor problem by 
 any rule of thumb. Every student of history, of political phil- 
 osophy, of economics, will tell us that the progress of the race 
 has been slow and painful ; that the world has advanced step 
 by step ; and that each successive step, to be enduring, must be 
 founded on justice. To suppose for a moment that the social 
 millennium will be ushered in by any one sudden change — 
 even were the change not so lamentably inadequate as the one 
 above discussed — is an evidence not of wisdom, but of short- 
 sightedness. 
 
 Kven as a method of tax reform, the scheme is, as we have 
 seen, a mistaken one. Our system of taxation is far from being 
 ideal, or even comparatively just; for we are still clinging, in a 
 great degree, to mediaeval errors. But whatever be the much- 
 needed reform, it is safe to say that neither the common pople 
 nor the student will ever accept a scheme which is palpably un- 
 just, which abandons the whole ideal theory of modern taxation 
 — that of relative ability or faculty — and which seeks to put the 
 burdens of the many on the shoulders of the few. 
 
 Survey. 31 : 697-702. March 7, 1914. 
 
 Halving the Tax Rate on Buildings : Pro and Con. 
 Edwin R. A. Seligman. 
 
 The problem of municipal taxation is again to the front in 
 New York. The advocates of the scheme to lower the rate of 
 taxation on buildings, and to increase that on land values, have 
 now put their proposition in the form of the so-called Herrick- 
 Schaap bill, which refers the whole matter to a popular referen- 
 dum. The agitation has been ingeniously managed so as to iden- 
 tify it in the popular mind with a project for lowering rents. 
 
 To the average student of politics this is an interesting prop- 
 
 13 
 
i62 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 osition. It shows with what ease an attempt can be made to sim- 
 plify complex problems. To the earnest investigator the matter is 
 much more serious. It has long been recognized that of all the 
 problems in economics that of the incidence and effects of taxa- 
 tion is one of the most subtle and difficult. A change in the 
 methods of taxation, far from being so simple a matter as the 
 advocates of the Herrick-Schaap bill imagine, is in reality a sub- 
 ject which calls for the most careful analysis and for the most 
 accurate knowledge of economic law. 
 
 The two shibboleths of the present agitation are lower rents 
 and prevention of congestion. It is well known that the people 
 behind the present movement are the small but active band of 
 Single-Taxers whose ultimate aim is to levy taxes on bare land 
 values. In order, however, not to affright the public, the scheme 
 is now introduced in the guise of a slow, gradual reduction of 
 the tax on buildings. To the extent, of course, that the change 
 is only partial, the effects, whether favorable or unfavorable, will 
 be slight. In order, however, to recognize the tendency of the 
 measure and to realize its full import, we must study the effects 
 of the change as a totality, and then subsequently make allowance 
 for the degree in which the partial adoption of the scheme falls 
 short of the whole. 
 
 There are three points of view from which the subject may be 
 approached ; the economic changes, the social changes in the 
 broader sense, and the fiscal changes. Each of these deserves 
 attention. 
 
 The economic question is that of the shifting of the tax : Will 
 house rents be lowered? If so, to what extent? 
 
 Tenants and Taxes 
 
 It is an accepted generalization of economics that, other 
 things being equal, a tax on the land is not shifted to the tenant, 
 whereas a tax on buildings is ordinarily shifted. In dealing with 
 actual facts, however, we shall find that the situation is by no 
 means so simple. 
 
 The rental value of a piece of real estate is composed of two 
 parts, the rent of the land proper and the rent of the house. 
 The land rent is influenced primarily by the growth of popula- 
 tion. Land costs nothing to produce and as population increases, 
 more and more sites are occupied at the fringe of the city, thus 
 
SINGLE TAX 163 
 
 pushing up the vakie of the land toward the central districts. 
 What is sometimes overlooked, however, is that in a city like 
 New York, capital must often be invested in order to prepare 
 the land for building. On a level stretch in some parts of Brook- 
 lyn, indeed, all that is requisite is the insignificant sum necessary 
 to take out the earth for the cellar of a frame house ; and as 
 most houses are built with cellars this may well be reckoned as 
 a part of the building cost. In many sections of New York, how- 
 ever, relatively large amounts must be spent in order to blast 
 away the hill or to make the rock excavations for the house, and 
 in still other parts of town considerable sums are not infre- 
 quently spent by real estate companies for levelling, grading, and 
 sewering the plots. To the extent that capital is invested in the 
 land we have to deal with improvements. 
 
 But in our tax system, as well as in the contemplated bill, by 
 improvements are always meant improvements on the land and 
 not improvements in the land. To the extent that the improve- 
 ments take place in the land the tax will be shifted to the tenant. 
 It does not follow, therefore, that if the tax on land is increased, 
 the whole of this increase will be borne by the owner. So that 
 even if we assume that . an exemption of houses from taxation 
 would in itself tend to lower rents, a part of the increased tax 
 on the land would tend to be shifted to the tenant and would 
 therefore increase rents. 
 
 But let us look now at the proposition that an exemption of 
 buildings from taxation would in itself lower rents. The theory, 
 of course, is that if the tax were taken off, more houses would be 
 built and the increased supply of houses would lower rents. 
 Furthermore, it is contended that the exemption of improvements 
 from taxation would lead to a continuous activity, and that the 
 resulting demand for capital would continually raise wages, in- 
 duce prosperity, and increase population. 
 
 The question, however, presents itself; even if we grant that 
 more houses will be built, will the effect be a permanent or 
 merely a temporary one? It is often said that houses are like 
 anything else ; reduce the price and you increase the consump- 
 tion. But this statement fails to consider a marked difference 
 between houses and other things. The demand for most com- 
 modities is elastic and will increase almost without limit, pro- 
 vided the price falls low enough. On the other hand the demand 
 
i64 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 for houses is limited. If the price of clothes falls considerably, 
 people on the margin will buy more clothes or better clothes; 
 and the further the price falls the more clothes they will 
 buy. But the demand for houses is strictly limited by the 
 extent of the population. More houses will not mean more 
 tenants. 
 
 It is indeed true that in every large city there is a fringe of 
 the population composed of people who do not live in rooms of 
 their own, who are boarders or lodgers with other people. If 
 more houses are built and rents fall, these people who have 
 hitherto been unable to occupy apartments of their own will in- 
 deed be put in a position to do so. But after the slack has been 
 taken up, and after all the boarders and lodgers are housed in 
 apartments of their own, what will happen? To build more 
 houses would simply mean to build vacant houses. 
 
 Is it not true, therefore, that as soon as the interval has 
 elapsed — one, two, or three years, sufficient for the building of 
 the additional houses, — the new equilibrium between housing 
 and population will have been reached, and that there will be no 
 further demand for new buildings, except that which comes from 
 ordinary growth of the population which existed before the 
 change in taxation and which will persist after this chang'e? 
 Where then will be the continuous demand for new houses, for 
 new capital, and for more labor? On the contrary, is it not 
 true that the only effect of a sudden exemption of houses from 
 taxation will mean a building boom which will in most cases be 
 apt to be overdone and which will inevitably be followed by a 
 collapse, by a pricking of the bubble, with the ultimate result 
 that only the normal number of houses will thereafter be built 
 every year? 
 
 We have heard a great deal about the wonderful effects of the 
 exemption of buildings in Vancouver and we have been deluged 
 with figures as to the increase of building operations and general 
 prosperity. It is indeed true that immediately after the complete 
 exemption of buildings from taxation in 1910, there was a great 
 building boom. The building permits in Vancouver amounted to 
 $13,150,365 in 1910, to $17,652,642 in 191 1, and to $19,388,322 in 
 1912. Everyone said, Lo, look at the results of the Single Tax ! 
 But what happened in 1913? The "Single Tax" is still there, 
 but the building permits fell to $10,424,447, one-half the amount 
 
SINGLE TAX i6s 
 
 in the preceding year and very much less than that in 1910. More- 
 over, the permits for December, 1912, amounted to $1,530,365 and 
 for December, 1913, to only $175,245, a falling off of over 85 per 
 cent. 
 
 Of course as a matter of fact everyone knows that the in- 
 fluence of taxation is subordinate to the wider and more import- 
 ant influences of general economic development and that neither 
 the boom nor the collapse can be ascribed to taxation alone; but 
 if our Single Tax friends will continue to claim Vancouver or 
 the other Canadian cities as an example of the beneficial effects of 
 taxation in increasing building operations, they must take their 
 medicine and now confess that the result is just the opposite of 
 what they claim. 
 
 Even though, however, the contention of general prosperity 
 consequent upon the exemption of buildings is clearly disproved, 
 it might be claimed that the new equilibrium will be reached at a 
 lower level, and that even if there be only a temporary boom in 
 buildings, rents will nevertheless, after the collapse, be less than 
 before. Let us consider, then, whether there are any counter- 
 vailing tendencies to oppose this trend to lower rents due to an 
 increase in the number of houses. 
 
 Building up the Suburbs 
 
 In the first place, is it not true that new houses are now con- 
 tinually being built on the outskirts by modest owners who can 
 barely afford to do so, but who expect to recoup their outlay and 
 to pay off the indebtedness, in part at least, by the gradual in- 
 crease in the value of their land? Just as the opening up of our 
 western cities was largely due to the expectation of a profit to the 
 farmers through the increase of land values, so also it is un- 
 doubtedly true that the building up of our suburbs is largely 
 due to this same expectation of the so-called unearned increment. 
 It is clear, however, that an increased tax on land values will 
 diminish the capital value of the land. For if the rental value of 
 land falls, its capital value must fall accordingly. To the ex- 
 tent, then, that land values will fall or will be prevented from ris- 
 ing, to that extent some intending builders will be prevented from 
 building. 
 
 Secondly, most houses are built nowadays on building loans 
 and the amount of the loan, as well as the rate of interest, is in 
 
i66 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 a certain proportion to the value of the land. If the increased 
 tax on the land diminishes its value, either less money can be 
 borrowed or a higher rate of interest will have to be paid, and in 
 either case there will be an impediment to the erection of new 
 houses. In the present state of slack building in New York any 
 doubt cast on the underlying security for the mortgage will ser- 
 iously check the free flow of loanable funds and to that extent 
 hinder the development of building operations. 
 
 Thirdly, it is clear that, as stated above, land rent increases 
 with every enlargement of the circumference of the city. In a 
 small town with few people, rents in the center are low. As the 
 population increases and the building zone widens, land rents will 
 rise until in a large metropolis, like New York, land values vary 
 from agricultural farm values at the outskirts up to thousands of 
 dollars per front foot in the center. If, now, it is true, as our 
 Single Tax friends contend, that the contemplated change of tax- 
 ation will mean the building of more houses, and therefore the 
 pushing out of the building periphery, will it not necessarily fol- 
 low that land rents will rise accordingly? It may indeed be con- 
 ceded that if the new houses were built on vacant plots toward 
 the centre, the pressure on the previously improved plots would 
 be relieved. But as soon as these vacant sites were improved, 
 and the building zone in general was extended, land rents to- 
 ward the centre would surely rise. The enlarg'ement of the 
 building zone, therefore, will cause land rents to rise throughout 
 the city, and the lowering of the building rent will tend to be 
 compensated, in part at least, by the rise of land rent, — making 
 the total rent paid by the tenant little, if any, less than 
 before. 
 
 Finally, fourthly, the ordinary argument adduced to prove that 
 rents in the slums will fall is, that if people can now after the 
 change of taxation secure better accommodations in the suburbs, 
 the owners in the slums will be compelled to reduce their rents 
 or have their houses go empty. It must not be forgotten, how- 
 ever, that there is much less mobility than is usually alleged. 
 Rents in the suburbs are now lower than they are in the slums, 
 and yet people continue to live in the slums partly because of 
 proximity to their work, but chiefly because of the social advan- 
 tages, or fancied advantages, of the neighborhood itself. It will 
 therefore take a very great change in conditions at the fringe in 
 
SINGLE TAX 167 
 
 the suburbs before an appreciable effect is produced in the cen- 
 ter of the city.* 
 
 Taking all these points together, it will be seen how far from 
 simple is the process and how far from sure is the alleged conse- 
 quence that house rents will fall. At the very best, even with 
 the total exemption of buildings from taxation, house rents will 
 fall by much less than the amount of the tax ; and, owing to 
 the reasons mentioned above, it is not sure that they will fall at 
 all. The popular cry of lower rents is far from exact. 
 
 Let us now consider a little more in detail the social conse- 
 quences or alleged consequences of such a change in taxation. 
 These social consequences may be discussed under three heads : 
 congestion, the relative advantages to rich and poor, and social 
 j ustice. 
 
 Congestion 
 
 By congestion we may mean two entirely distinct things : 
 either density of population per room, or density of population 
 per acre. Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that 
 house rents will fall slightly, thus enabling more people to live 
 in separate apartments and thus reducing the density per 
 room, does it follow that there will be a decrease in the popula- 
 tion per acre. And if not, which congestion is to be preferred? 
 
 If buildings are exempted from taxation there will manifestly 
 be every inducement to prospective builders to enlarge their 
 profits by increasing the height of buildings. They will not build 
 better building's because there will be no demand for rooms at 
 the increased rental in that neighborhood. They will therefore 
 build higher structures, each apartment of which will rent at the 
 customary figure. As a result, the old and low buildings in the 
 slums will be replaced by high apartment houses, each of which 
 may house two or three times as many people as before. The 
 consequence will be a great increase in the density per acre, 
 with all the resulting discomforts and dangers in the streets and 
 consequent need of spending still more money for parks and open 
 spaces. 
 
 It might be claimed, however, that this consequence can be 
 averted by a law limiting the height of buildings. But in the 
 
 * For .1 scientific discussion of this point see Seligman, The Shifting 
 and Incidence of Taxation, 3rd ed., 1910, pp. 313 et seq. 
 
i68 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 first place it must be pointed out that there is no such proposition 
 in the present scheme, so that it must stand on its own merits ; 
 and secondly, even if such a building law were passed it would 
 help matters very little. A very small proportion of the existing 
 tenement population lives at present in buildings of the maxi- 
 mum height. A rebuilding of the city even with buildings limited 
 to the maximum height would cause a co.ngestion per acre far 
 greater than anything that now exists. Not only would there be 
 no small houses, but there would be no coal yards, no wood 
 sheds, nothing to break the monotony of tenements. 
 
 Moreover, a similar situation will ensue in the rest of the 
 city. The tendency of an increased tax on land values must al- 
 ways be a more extensive utilization of the land. This will 
 mean a more compactly built city than at present. Instead of 
 little houses with gardens around them, such as we see now in 
 outlying districts, and even in some of the more densely popu- 
 lated parts of Brooklyn, we shall have a repetition throughout 
 the whole length and breadth of the city of conditions that we 
 find in Manhattan. The congestion in Manhattan was produced 
 by the configuration of the island. Have we not a right to look 
 forward to a situation in other boroughs comparable to that in 
 residential districts of most American cities? Will not the ex- 
 emption of buildings from taxation and the increased tax on 
 land stop that tendency? We must answer, unfortunately, yes. 
 It will mean no open spaces ; it will mean no gardens around the 
 houses ; it will mean house next to house, and apartment by 
 apartment; it will mean in short a repetition of all the worst 
 evils of the slums spread throughout the entire city. Land specu- 
 lation may have its abuses ; but this evil at least it avoids. An 
 unbuilt lot may seem in some respects a waste ; but at least it af- 
 fords fresh air, and sunlight and grateful space. 
 
 Is this kind of congestion not really worse than the conges- 
 tion per room? Is it wise to purchase what is at best a dubious 
 relief from the congestion per room at the cost of a very certain 
 increase in the congestion per acre? Is it not true, as Bastiat 
 said, that we must distinguish between the seen and the unseen? 
 The enthusiastic advocates of opposition to congestion fail to 
 see that they are tending to produce a worse congestion than the 
 one they attempt to relieve. 
 
 The true remedy for congestion is not any change in taxation. 
 
SINGLE TAX 169 
 
 The true remedy for congestion consists in ample facilities for 
 transportation ; in laws to restrict tlie height and the depth of 
 buildings ; in broad streets and numerous parks and playgrounds 
 scattered over every part of the city. The first two will relieve 
 congestion per room ; the last will relieve congestion per acre. 
 But a change in the tax laws will have a most insignificant effect 
 on the one, and will have the opposite of a beneficial effect on 
 the other. 
 
 The second point is, who will derive the social benefits of this 
 change in taxation, the rich or the poor? The poor, as we have 
 seen, will secure little, if any, decrease of rents ; and what they 
 possibly gain by a decrease of rents, they will lose by an increase 
 in congestion per acre. How is it, however, with the other 
 class of population? Take the typical rich man who builds 
 himself a fine mansion on Fifth Avenue for his own residence. 
 Is he a representative of a class that needs special favors from 
 the community? It may be said indeed that a fine mansion is 
 generally erected on expensive ground and that under the new 
 scheme he will pay as much more for the land as he pays less for 
 the mansion. But that assumes that the land is worth as much 
 as the house. We all know that that is not the case, and that 
 the more sumptuous residences are precisely those that cost more 
 than the land on which they stand. 
 
 The Rich Favored 
 
 On what theory then, shall these rich men be favored? Cer- 
 tainly it cannot be on the theory that people should pay in accord- 
 ance with their ability to pay; for according to that theory 
 the rich man ought to pay more than the others, not less. It 
 will be said, however, that the true basis of local taxation is the 
 theory of benefits and not the theory of ability. 
 
 Accepting that claim for the sake of argument, what would be 
 the result? Shall we say that the owner of the palace or of the 
 Woolworth building derives no benefits from the city administra- 
 tion to incur no expense? How about fire protection? The 
 land cannot be destroyed, but the house can. How about poHce 
 protection? The land cannot be taken away, but you may rifle 
 the contents of the building, and so on. Is it not clear that the 
 exemption of buildings from taxation or a lower tax rate on 
 
170 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 buildings gives an unfair advantage to the very rich rather than 
 to the very poor? 
 
 And if we pass from a consideration of the owners of these 
 fine buildings to that of the tenants what do we find? In the 
 skyscrapers downtown are lodged the big banks, the big trust 
 companies, the big lawyers, the big financial and business enter- 
 prises of all kinds. At present if we assume that the tax on the 
 house is shifted to them, they pay at least something to the ex- 
 penses of the city government. Under the new scheme they 
 would be totally exempt. In the skyscraper we find most of the 
 money-making agencies of the city, and yet it is seriously pro- 
 posed to exempt all these from any contribution to the city ex- 
 penses, even that indirect contribution which they pay in the 
 shape of rent. 
 
 Take the statistics of new buildings that are constructed in 
 any large city. You will find that to an overwhelming extent 
 they represent valuable opportunities for the larger business men 
 and for the wealthier residents. The amount of new construc- 
 tion, which consists of tenement houses, or cheap apartment 
 houses, and of small residential buildings, is an insignificant pro- 
 portion of the whole. Will the small man, then, really get the 
 benefit of the change? 
 
 Let us take next the great mass of moderately comfortable 
 people, neither the very rich nor the very poor, and consider 
 how they will be affected. 
 
 In many parts of the residential sections of New York the 
 land is worth more than the improvements. We are told that 
 the average of land values in New York is 63 per cent and that 
 in some of the residential sections it rises to 70 per cent and 
 in some cases even to 80 per cent. What now will be the effect 
 of this change in taxation upon the great mass of modest house 
 owners where the land has come after some years to be worth 
 more than the house? These house owners have not any larger 
 income than before and they are perhaps just about able to live 
 comfortably on their present income. 
 
 The change in the rate of taxation will impose an additional 
 burden upon them and will tend to force out of their houses all 
 those who are on the fringe. As they are forced out of their 
 homes the land will be put to the most intensive use and their 
 houses will be replaced by lofty apartments. Thus gradually 
 
SINGLE TAX 171 
 
 from a city of modest home owners we shall be converted into a 
 town of apartment- and flat-dwellers. This transition may be 
 inevitable, but why hasten it by artificial means ? 
 
 Not only will the rich man be favored and the modest house- 
 owner be injured but, in the third place, what will be the effect 
 upon property holders in general, whether rich or poor? It is 
 claimed that the object of the proposed scheme is to do away 
 with speculation in land. Now I hold no brief for land specu- 
 lators, although I think that they are a much maligned class and 
 that we have made of the land speculator a bugaboo just as the 
 ordinary man in the west had made of the New York Stock 
 Exchange. Speculation has its good sides and its bad sides. It 
 has its uses and its abuses. There is an economic utility in land 
 speculation as there is an economic utility in stock exchange 
 speculation. That there are evils not to be overlooked is plain 
 and that our former system of under-assessing vacant lands de- 
 veloped great abuses of land .speculation is equally undoubted. 
 But is it not a mistake to identify all landowners with land 
 speculators ? 
 
 My objection to the present scheme as well as to the Single 
 Tax does not rest on any opposition to the taxation of real 
 estate or on any desire to minimize the desirability of taking for 
 the public some, at least, of the increase in land values. I think 
 that a fair case might be made out not only for having the 
 weight of local taxation rest primarily on real estate, but also for 
 a land increment value tax, to be added to our present taxes 
 just as Germany and England have done. But the essential 
 difference between such a scheme, which is not now before us, 
 and the present project is, that the other plan deals onlj' with 
 future increases of value, while this scheme deals with present 
 values. 
 
 I have never been able to understand why a man who has 
 invested in land should be exposed to the danger of having a 
 part of his property taken away from him? When he invested 
 his money in land it was on the basis of the accepted policy of 
 social justice, that private property in land was to be treated like 
 private property in other things. The landowner in New York- 
 city today is not simply a speculator nor is he always a rich 
 man. There are numberless modest landowners and numberless 
 men in modest circumstances who own shares in real estate 
 
172 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 companies. Why should the selling value of their land be so 
 diminished by an act of government that a part of their property 
 is confiscated? Does it not run counter to our very ideas of 
 social justice and of equality of taxation? 
 
 Of course, those who hold that there are no vested rights in 
 land would brush aside this argument ; but I fancy that the com- 
 mon sense of most people is not yet ready to go to the length 
 of accepting the bald proposition that the state has a right to 
 take away a man's property without compensation. 
 
 It is claimed again that this particular project will be so 
 gradual in operation that there will be no net diminution in land 
 values, because the increased value due to the normal growth of 
 population will more than offset the diminished value due to 
 capitalization of the tax. This position might be tenable in case 
 all land increased equally in value throughout the city. But we 
 know from experience that this is not the fact; that some 
 sections increase in value while other sections remain stationary 
 or even decrease in value. As to all the unfortunate property 
 owners, and there are many of them, situated in such sections, 
 the objection therefore would not be removed. 
 
 Fiscal Aspects 
 
 Thus we see that while the poor tenant would receive little, 
 if any, advantage, the rich man and the great business magnate 
 would be unduely favored, and the modest house owner and the 
 not inconsiderable number of ordinary land owners would be 
 distinctly injured. 
 
 We come, finally, to the fiscal aspects of the problem. In 
 considering these we must bear in mind that while land values 
 will be lowered, land rents will not be less than before. 
 
 The rent of land, that is, the amount paid by the tenant, is a 
 gross sum, and depends entirely upon the growth of population. 
 The rental value of land to the owner is a net sum, that is, it is 
 the rent paid by the tenant, less the taxes and other expenses, if 
 any, in managing the land. The selling value of an}rthing is 
 always the capitalization of the net rent. Consequently, the 
 higher you make the tax on land, the lower you make the value 
 of land, without affecting in one iota' the rent paid by the tenant. 
 If the entire net yield of the land were taken by the state, the 
 
SINGLE TAX 173 
 
 land would not be worth anything to own; but the rent to the 
 tenant would be just as high as before, the only difference being 
 that now the tenant would virtually pay rent to the state in the 
 form of taxes transmitted through the landlord. 
 
 If this principle is kept clearly in mind, we can see what the 
 results of the tax would be. Obviously the base of revenue 
 would be more restricted. If, instead of taxing both lands and 
 houses, we tax only lands, we have less to tax; and if, in 
 addition, the selling value of the land is now diminished, we have 
 doubly less to tax than before. 
 
 What we need in our large cities is more revenue, not less 
 revenue. Does it not seem, then, to be a very questionable 
 scheme to endeavor to raise more revenue by narrowing the base 
 of taxation. 
 
 But not alone would the system fail to respond to our need 
 for an increased revenue; it would probably be hazardous. Taxes 
 are almost everywhere limited to a certain percentage of the 
 property taxed. In New York city this limit is fixed at two per 
 cent, exclusive of the debt charge. Is it not clear that if the 
 thousands of millions of dollars invested in houses are exempted 
 from taxation, the rate on the land would have to be raised so 
 as to approach dangerously close to the limit, if not in fact to 
 exceed it. The contention that it would be possible to reduce 
 the rate on houses and at the same time still keep them on the 
 assessment lists at full value, is not tenable. Either, therefore, 
 the Constitution will have to be changed, or the tax limit raised. 
 
 Charles H. Shields. Single Tax Exposed. 
 
 All Property of Exchangable Value Should Be Taxed. 
 
 Under our present system and present land laws, land is 
 property, and I hold that private property in land is consistent 
 with and necessary to man in a state of civilization. Under our 
 present system of exchange which is the product of civilization 
 and the outgrowth of the division of labor, we have several 
 classes of property. Land owned by individuals may be con- 
 sidered first, as it is upon land and land values, home values, 
 that all other industries rest. Cattle and other animals that are 
 
174 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 bought and sold on account of their usefulness for food or 
 otherwise, may be classed as another kind of property. Stocks, 
 bonds and obligations to pay may be classed as another kind. 
 The products of the soil, coupled with labor, form another class. 
 Goods, wares and merchandise, manufactured articles of all 
 kinds, whether manufactured by machinery or by hand, consti- 
 tute another class. Books containing the mental efforts and 
 energy of individuals may be classed as another kind of property. 
 All the property coming under the various classifications are 
 essential to man in a state of society. One is exchangeable for 
 another by and through the process of our system of exchange. 
 If an individual desires a manufactured article of any descrip- 
 tion, he may sell the product of his labor, or may exchange an 
 article of value that he has for money which is the blood of 
 commerce, and with that money purchase any other article he 
 may desire that is obtainable. The various articles which may be 
 considered the product of man are the result of the requirements 
 of society. Consequently they are in demand. Therefore they are 
 exchangeable for other commodities that are in demand, accord- 
 ing to the tastes and desires of the various individuals of society 
 which are extremely numerous. When an article is no more 
 desired by society, the manufacture of it ceases, and in its place 
 a more important article is manufactured. Thus the process of 
 the growth and demand of the hundreds of thousands of various 
 manufactured articles desired, and even necessary, for man in 
 a state of society. If an individual has money, he will have no 
 difficulty whatever in finding others who own land, to part with 
 that land for a certain amount of his money. 
 
 Hence it should be obvious to the reader that all kinds of 
 property which are desired by society and which can be ex- 
 changed, one for another, should be treated alike in the eyes of 
 the law. Any discrimination against one kind of property would 
 have a tendency to injure that particular class. 
 
 It would be perfectly natural for an individual to desire 
 and hold that class, of property that was favored by law. Mr. 
 George reasoned this out. Therefore he schemed to discriminate 
 against land, and by the process of this discrimination force land 
 back into the hands of the government. 
 
 As long as we treat land as property, there should be no 
 discrimination against it. There is no justice in placing the 
 
SINGLE TAX 17S 
 
 burden of taxation upon land. There could be but one reason 
 for it, namely, that of discriminating against it and finally 
 confiscating the present values of it. 
 
 Henry George claims that man is a land animal and therefore 
 cannot live without the use of the land, and that the land should 
 belong to all of the people because of man being a land animal ; 
 that man can no more live without the use of the land than he 
 can live without air and water. Therefore land should be free 
 as air and water. Of course we agree with Mr. George that 
 man is a land animal, and that he can not subsist without the 
 products of the soil any more than he could live without free 
 access of air and the use of water. That is no argument against 
 the private ownership of land. Mr. George says that the man 
 who owns the land under our present system virtually owns 
 those who must occupy the land. He fails to recognize that 
 man is a social as well as a land animal, and that social condi- 
 tions are as necessary for man in a state of society as the use of 
 the land or the air and the water. In order to get this thought 
 more clearly before the reader it will be necessary to go back 
 into the early history, in fact, beyond the period when there 
 was history, to show the progress and growth of society. 
 
 To illustrate this thought we will concede that land is the 
 hub of the wheel of society. Man must draw his support from 
 the land ; that in his undeveloped state — in his tribal state, 
 land was practically the only essential to his well-being; but 
 when the division of labor was first adopted, social progress 
 then commenced. When man evoluted to that state of intelli- 
 gence where he saw that a division of labor was better for 
 his well-being, the fisherman said to the rude boat-builder, 
 "You build the boats and I will fish ;" and these two said to 
 a third, "You till the soil while one builds the boat and another 
 fishes ;" and to the fourth, "You make the bows and arrows, 
 while the fifth will do the hunting;" and to the sixth, "You 
 make the crude implements necessary to till the soil." 
 
 And so this division of labor grew, as man progressed in- 
 tellectually and socially. It has been a long continuous growth, 
 and each and every new invention has added to the wants of 
 man, and has therefore become a necessity in the state of 
 society that he then or now exists in. This process has gone 
 on and on. The greater the wants of society, the greater the 
 
176 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 division of labor; and the greater the division of labor, the 
 greater were the vyants of society. 
 
 Now, the various lines of industry, the various articles of 
 wearing apparel, the many thousand articles of value that 
 are desired by the individuals of society, form the other por- 
 tions of the wheel. Machinery of all description that is today 
 used, transportation facilities, great manufacturing plants, banks, 
 telephone and telegraph system, in fact, the whole super- 
 structure of society are the spokes, the felloes and tire of the 
 wheel. Now I submit to you: Is the land which we have desig- 
 nated the hub of any greater importance to man in a state of 
 society than the numerous other factors which we have just enu- 
 merated, and which we may call the spokes, the felloes and tire 
 of the wheel? The hub, or the land, would supply the wants of 
 man in a state of savagery, but not in a state of development. For 
 this reason I hold that there may be many thousand lines of 
 pursuits of trade and combination of various interests that 
 may be promoted by individuals, that could be of more harm 
 to society than any possible monopoly of land. 
 
 Under our system of exchange, as before stated, if one 
 accumulated goods or money, they could at any time convert 
 it into land. There is no monopoly of land. The majority of 
 people who own land are perfectly willing to let it go for a 
 fair consideration. They can take the money and engage in 
 other pursuits that are equally as profitable as that of tilling 
 the soil, and much more pleasant. As a matter of fact, if you 
 would today divide the land in the United. States and give each 
 individual their portion, it would not be twenty-five years 
 until conditions would be about the same as they are today. 
 Those who wanted to experiment and were not satisfied with 
 the tilling of the soil would sell their land. One would want to 
 go into a grocery store, or perhaps he would want to go into 
 the automobile business. Another would want to sell his land 
 and go into the city where he could have the greater pleasures 
 of society ; where he could wear fine clothes and make a good 
 appearance, at least while his money would last. Others would 
 want to convert their land into money and travel, they would 
 want to see the sights of the cities and perhaps of foreign 
 countries ; and so on, until each and every one satisfied to 
 the extent of their ability so to do, their curiosity, their pecu- 
 
SINGLE TAX 177 
 
 liar desires, their peculiar ideas, etc. A majority of them would 
 prove a failure in the enterprise in which they embarked. 
 Ninety per cent of the business enterprises undertaken prove 
 failures. These people then would not be the possessors of 
 soil. They would have spent their money. Ninety per cent of 
 their undertakings have failed, therefore they would be in what 
 we call the working classes. This would be the process of 
 working back to the present state of affairs. 
 
 It is folly to argue as the Single Taxer does — that improvi- 
 dence, bad judgment, ill health, intemperance, insobriety, stup- 
 idity, vicious temperament, ignorance, laziness, dishonesty, bad 
 management, diseased brains, physical and intellectual delin- 
 quency, lack of foresight and other imperfections of mind and 
 body that could be mentioned, can be overcome and righted 
 by an act of legislation. All the physical and mental ailments 
 above recited play their part in the unequal distribution of 
 wealth ; they play their part and are responsible for the many 
 sad, conditions that we see in society. Mr. George would have 
 you believe that all of these ills are traceable to and have 
 their being in the private ownership of land. 
 
 As long as we have the various stages of intellectuality we 
 may expect to have a like variation in the possession of prop- 
 erty. Any legislation seeking to restrict the advancement of 
 one because others are unfortunate and cannot keep up with 
 those who are in the advance, would have a tendency to hold 
 all down alike, therefore would destroy all ambition to advance. 
 The lower down in the scale of humanity you go, the nearer 
 you come to an equality. I should like very much to see the 
 ills of society abolished were it possible. We must not, how- 
 ever, allow our emotion and our sympathy to distort and warp 
 our judgment. The law of the survival of the fittest seems to 
 hold good in all mineral, vegetable and animal creation. 
 
 Henry George tried to figure out a system that would make 
 all men equal. In doing so he failed to recognize that the great 
 ineqitalities, both social and financial, are very largely due 
 to the differences between individuals, not that the possessor 
 of vast wealth is wiser or has more brains than those who 
 have no possession whatever, for such is not the case. The 
 philosopher is seldom a rich man. The professors of our uni- 
 versities are seldom rich men. The great thinkers of our age 
 
178 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 are not rich men. They have used their talents for the acqui- 
 sition of knowledge. The same is true of musicians, physi- 
 cians and surgeons. They have used their time and energy in 
 becoming skilled in the arts of music and human anatomy. 
 The same may be said of great sculptors and painters and of 
 clergymen, scientists and political economists. They have given 
 their time and energy to the acquisition of knowledge. There- 
 fore they have but little of the worldy possessions. 
 
 I believe enough has been said along this line to give the 
 reader a clear insight into social conditions ; that enough has 
 been said to show clearly that no process of taxation, and 
 especially that of Single Tax, which would confiscate all private 
 property in land, thereby destroying the very foundation upon 
 which civilization has advanced, can ever bring about the 
 extirpation of pauperism and the equalization of the distribu- 
 tion of wealth. 
 
 Society will always have its troubles as long as there is 
 such a vast difiference in human nature. The great readers 
 along the line of political economy have recognized this fact. 
 Herbert Spencer when a young man, reasoning without experi- 
 ence, attempted to write a purely ethical work on political eco- 
 nomy. The title of the work was "Social Statics." He advo- 
 cated the nationalization of land by compensating the owners, 
 for their land. After forty years of experience, when his 
 judgment was tempered by the cold, stubborn facts and reali- 
 ties of life, he came to the conclusion that his early writings 
 were wrong, and in speaking of the nationalization of land he 
 says: 
 
 "Until there is a great change in human nature, the nation- 
 alization of land would be impracticable.'' 
 
 National Tax Association Proceedings. 1913. 7: 129-32. 
 
 Single Tax in Canada. Adam Shortt. 
 
 I have noticed in a good many American publications 
 reference to the experiences of Canada in the way of a Single 
 Tax, particularly the laws adopted in our western provinces, 
 and it occurs to me that a word might be put in here with refer-_ 
 ence to the actual results in that part of the country. Now if 
 
SINGLE TAX 179 
 
 any of you care to go up to any of our typical western cities — 
 Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw or 
 even Winnipeg — what you will find is this : that the people who 
 were there before the land speculation started did not raise 
 the values of land there so suddenly as they have been raised 
 within the last six years. You would find if you went into 
 an actual analysis of the situation that the process was exactly 
 reversed. People have flocked into those cities because certain 
 men went there and systematically organized land booms. The 
 Single Taxers tell us that men are entitled to take what they cre- 
 ate, but they are not entitled to take what other people create. 
 Now a certain group of land speculators have created nine- 
 tenths of the land values out there, and have sold them to 
 other people, but what the other people are going to take 
 with them in the end remains to be seen. The incipient boom 
 that was started off led a great many other people to rush in 
 and that made a demand for houses. They started to build 
 houses. You make an analysis of any of those cities and you 
 will find that the city has grown up through its own construc- 
 tion because in many of those cities there is no industry; there 
 is nothing going on except incidental industries — sash and door 
 factories, brick making, etc. — incidental to the construction and 
 building of sidewalks, city streets and all that. You have an 
 army of people brought in there to do these things and the specu- 
 lators have gone ahead of that and sold out. Now I say the spec- 
 ulator obviously created these values and upon the prmciple of 
 a man being entitled to what he himself creates he is entitled to 
 all that he got. 
 
 But here is the other point : they say that taxation will get 
 after the speculator — that the Single Tax will catch him. Go to 
 those same cities, analyize the process, ascertain who the people 
 are who took in hundreds of acres, converted them into city 
 lots, sold them within the next twelve or eighteen months to 
 other people and then went out from there and took in more 
 and sold it again — find out whether the Single Tax got after 
 them. No, they got in and they got out, and some of them are 
 multi-millionaires today. They hardly paid a cent of taxes and 
 they don't need to pay any more. They have unloaded on 
 other people and the people on whom they first unloaded have 
 unloaded on the second comers and made money. 
 
i8o SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 This was a common experience with the type of man who 
 had made twenty or thirty thousand dollars, not one of the 
 rich speculators, but a secondary speculator. He would talk 
 about having come from down east, and would say "At the 
 school they all looked on me as somewhat of a back number. 
 There was Jim So and So who always stood at the head of the 
 class and I was way down ; but I tell you when it comes to the 
 real thing in life — that is what puts it up to you. Those fellows 
 are stuck in the mud down there and I am worth thirty, forty 
 or fifty thousand dollars. That's the real test of intelligence 
 and brains." "Well," I would say to some of these people, "yes, 
 but can you show me any fool out here who dipped in and lost?" 
 Everything was going up. It didn't matter what they bought ; it 
 went up. City lots, rural districts — everything went up and up 
 and up. But what I want to see is, when the thing starts the 
 other way, who is going to save himself. That is the man I 
 will take to have the brains, and the man with the stuff on his 
 hands will be the back number. He is the man who is going to 
 pay the taxes. I do not take the real speculator to be the man 
 who buys now and has to wait then, twenty or thirty years to 
 turn over. The real speculator out there is the man who buys 
 this year and has half of it sold next year and the other half 
 the year after. You go to those cities and you will find that 
 some of these milHonaire speculators have gone away. Some of 
 them who had money and who invested it through confidential, 
 agents took the money and went away; but a number of others 
 joined the city council, started in to invest in sky-scrapers, big 
 office buildings, stores, etc., which were in demand, and that is 
 where they are now. And I did not find a single land speculator 
 out there who was not shouting for the Single Tax. It gave him a 
 halo of righteousness, to begin with, that he was the man pay- 
 ing the taxes, — and he wasn't, of course, — but it enabled him to 
 escape taxes on his investments in the city. 
 
 Then there are a dozen other things familiar enough in the 
 rapid development of the real estate booms in these cities. 
 Every speculator is anxious to have the real estate assessed 
 as high as possible because it enables him to borrow that much 
 more money at fair rates in the old country and other places to 
 put into local improvements, which give employment to other 
 people to put up these stores, shops etc. So long as the foreign 
 
SINGLE TAX i8i 
 
 capital is being brought in, they are booming their land and 
 developing the cities. I say if any of you are curious, go out 
 and investigate yourself. t)on't write to the mayor of the city, 
 or the city clerk or the treasurer because you know what you 
 will get, but go and look into it. Get these very people, Single 
 Taxers and so on, to sit down half an hour and go into details 
 with them and you will find out. I have said that in cities out 
 west — in Saskatoon and Winnipeg — and I have had a lot of 
 Single Taxers come to refute me, and when I demonstrated it, 
 they hadn't a word to say. 
 
 When it comes to an absolutely solid basis all these cities 
 will come to a point at which they will have to worry along and 
 have to get their industries and learn over again, and then and 
 then only I would look to them as an example for your older 
 cities and older country. And I am perfectly confident from 
 what I have seen and heard out there that there will be a terrible 
 sweep the other way, because no man is going to pay a high price 
 for a lot which he expects to convert into a garden, with per- 
 haps a small house on it — ^not if he is taxed up to the limit and 
 all these multi-millionaires go scot free with their fine buildings 
 in the cities. 
 
 On this question of land, I think Mr. Shields made It per- 
 fectly clear that if you take away the rent value from a piece of 
 property there is nothing left. Mr. Fillebrown says you can still 
 own the property. Of course, so you can if you still care 
 
 to. You can put up a fine building on the property and if the 
 state comes along and takes away the building rent, you can own 
 that too, but to what good. But Mr. Fillebrown may say that 
 the land was put there for use and the building was put there 
 for use and when a man comes along and uses the building to 
 sell goods in it to keep offices in it, he says he is getting the value. 
 Of course he is. And if the state takes the rental of the land 
 and the rental of the building, the other man can go- hang. 
 
 Before following our Canadian example, wait and see what 
 happens. 
 
i82 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Equity Series. 1:185-204. December, 1898. 
 
 Criticism of the Single Tax. ' Newton M. Taylor. 
 
 Mr. Henry George in iiis book entitled "Progress and Pov- 
 erty," describes in a most eloquent and powerful manner the 
 ruinous effect on society of the monopoly of the land of a coun- 
 try by a comparatively small number of its citizens, and as a 
 remedy he proposed, "To abolish all taxation save that upon land 
 values." I freely endorse all that he has so eloquently said 
 concerning the evils of land monopoly, but I am firmly convinced 
 that he has wholly misconceived the true remedy. Before show- 
 ing some of the unjust and disastrous effects that would result 
 from the enforcement of this system of taxation, I desire to 
 briefiy notice a few of the peculiar catch words and phrases by 
 means of which the Single Taxers greatly deceive themselves. 
 
 Indictment No. i. They have a great deal to say about 
 "land values," and say that they propose to tax "land values." 
 But that is nothing new, for we have always taxed land values. 
 We tax the fertile land in our valleys from two to ten times as 
 much as we do the land in broken, hilly, rocky and mountainous 
 regions, for the simple reason that it is worth more — it has 
 more value. For the same reason we now tax an eighth of an 
 acre of land in a town or city as much as we do a hundred — or 
 two hundred — or five hundred — acres of good land in the 
 adjoining country districts. We tax everything according to 
 its value. We tax one horse at forty dollars and another at 
 one or two hundred dollars or even much more than that, 
 because they possess different amounts of value. We always 
 tax value — horse value, cow value and land value. Yet the 
 Single Taxer rolls the phrase "land value" under his tongue as a 
 sweet morsel and imagines that it is a wholly new idea. When 
 we tax land we necessarily tax land value. To say that there is 
 any difference in taxing "land" and taxing "land value" is 
 absurd. It is simply a play on words. When the Single Taxer 
 proposes to throw all of the burden of taxation upon "land value" 
 he simply means upon "land" alone. Of course, the word land 
 includes lots, mines, etc. 
 
 Indictment No. 2. The Single Taxer talks a great deal about 
 the "unearned increment," by which he means the increase in the 
 
SINGLE TAX 183 
 
 value or price of land as the demand for it increases by the 
 increase in population. He says that the unearned increment 
 should be taxed. But we are now doing that, and always have 
 done so. As land increases in value we increase the tax assess- 
 ment on it. Farm lands and city lots in the state of Illinois 
 and city of Chicago are assessed at many times as much now as 
 they were fifty years ago. Then when the Single Taxer says that 
 he proposes to tax unearned increment he means nothing new. 
 We have always done that. It is simply one of his plays upon 
 words. 
 
 Indictvicnt No. 3. The Single Tax advocate greatly overdraws 
 the fact of the unearned increment. There is very little prairie 
 land in the Eastern and Southern states — as well as in many of 
 the Western states. In their natural condition they were cov- 
 ered with dense forests and almost impenetrable growths of un- 
 derbrush. Large areas were swampy low lands, and much of 
 the land was covered with rocks and stones as a legacy of the 
 glacial period. Our city Single Tax agitators (and they are 
 mostly found in cities) do not seem to have the shghtest idea of 
 the amount of labor it took to make beautiful farms out of those 
 heavily timbered, rocky and swampy lands, to say nothing of 
 the hardships and privations that were endured by our fore- 
 fathers. If we only rate that labor at fifty cents a day for each 
 day spent in clearing of those forests, digging out the roots and 
 stumps, ditching and draining the swamps and gathering up 
 the rocks and stones, these lands would not now sell for enough 
 to pay for the work. As to these vast areas there is absolutely 
 no unearned increment. Yet, as we will see further on, the 
 Single Taxer wants to throw much of the burden of taxation on 
 these lands ! 
 
 In our towns and cities and in prairie countries there has 
 been a large unearned increment. I say "has been" advisedly, 
 because for the most part the unearned increment has been har- 
 vested and scattered to the four quarters of the globe, and the 
 property is for the most part in the hands of innocent purchasers. 
 As to our farm lands, the unearned increment reached its high 
 water mark twenty-five years ago and since that time they have 
 declined in price nearly if not quite 50 per cent. And the own- 
 ers of real estate in the most of our towns and cities have during 
 that period suffered in the same way, only the decrease has not 
 
l84 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 been so great. But the process is still going on and it will 
 continue for many years, because the most of our towns and 
 smaller cities have attained their normal size, and many of them 
 have outgrown the country surrounding them. Many of them 
 are not gaining at all in population and in most of them the 
 future growth will be exceedingly slow. Besides all this, town 
 and city lots must go down to the gold basis if we maintain the 
 gold standard. Farm lands and commodities have gone down 
 in price to correspond with the rise in gold, and town and city 
 property must do the same. Nothing can resist the fall of prices 
 consequent upon a rising monetary unit. Everything must sooner 
 or later go down to the common level of general prices. 
 
 An old citizen of Philadelphia says that back as far as 1820 
 farm lands in the vicinity of that city were as high as they are 
 now. And we all know of the hundreds of farms thruout 
 New England that have been abandoned in the last twenty-five 
 years. 
 
 Therefore it is important to remember that as to a large part 
 of our country there is not now and there never has been any 
 unearned increment, and that if there is to be any confiscation 
 done it should not apply to any of these lands. And we should 
 also remember that as to those parts of the country where there 
 was any unearned increment as to lands and lots, the most of 
 the persons who got the benefit of it are in their graves and 
 that the most of these lands are now owned by persons who paid 
 full value for them, and who in many instances have already 
 lost money on them. There has either been no rise in price — 
 unearned increment — or the interest on the money invested and 
 taxes have more than counter-balanced it. It will be very diffi- 
 cult for the ordinary person to see why the public should con- 
 fiscate these last named lands and lots. So I respectfully submit 
 that when our Single Taxers talk about the unearned increment 
 they are for the most part talking about a back number — ancient 
 history. 
 
 Indictment No. 4. There is another word about which our 
 Single Tax advocate has very confused ideas. I have reference to 
 the word rent. It simply means the consideration paid to the 
 owner of the land for the temporary use and occupation of the 
 land by another. But the census of 1890 showed that 3,142,746 
 of our farms are occupied by the men who own them, and that 
 
SINGLE TAX 185 
 
 there are only 1,624,433 rented farms in this country. The 3,142,- 
 746 fanners pay no rent. And the census reports show that 
 2,928,671 of our homes in our towns, villages and cities are 
 owned by the famiUes occupying them, and therefore these per- 
 sons pay no rent. In heaven's name are the homes, farms and 
 residences of all of these six millions of families to be confiscated 
 simply to enable us to punish the landlords of the country? In 
 his inscrutable reasoning and elastic conscience the Single Taxer 
 says yes. He has to do so for he makes no distinction between 
 the property occupied by its owner and rented property. 
 
 The Single Taxers actually want the government to forcibly 
 appropriate these millions of homes and farms without com- 
 pensation and force all of these people to go to paying rent — 
 that is a tax that is to be equal to and as burdensome as the 
 rent that is now paid by our tenants to our landlords. They 
 want to return to feudalism and change everybody into tenants 
 and make the reign of rent universal. I protest against this 
 ruinous scheme. Instead of destroying our millions of happy 
 homesteads in our villages and towns, cities and country dis- 
 tricts, we should foster, protect and multiply them. Instead of 
 increasing the burden of taxation on them we should relieve 
 them from taxation, and throw all of that burden on our large 
 estates, on our landlords, and wealthy owners of both real and 
 personal property. Our homesteads are the very last thing that 
 should be taxed. 
 
 But Mr. George in his book says that this theory will not 
 result in the confiscation of land, but only of the rent, and by 
 confiscation of rent he means the imposition of an annual tax 
 that shall be equal to the annual rental value of the real estate. 
 Here is another instance of that play upon words in the art of 
 which he was a consummate master, and which he handed down 
 to his disciples. Yet in the same paragraph he admits that by 
 taking the "rent" he is taking the "kernel" and only leaving 
 the landowner the "shell." (See Chapter II., Book 8.) 
 
 A simple illustration will prove that it would be the actual 
 confiscation of the real estate itself. Let us suppose that Mr. 
 A. rents a farm at a yearly rental of $300, which was about 6 
 per cent of the value of the property. He pays the rent for 
 several years, and finally to avoid the further payment of rent 
 he concludes to buy the land. He manages to make the first 
 
i86 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 payment and gives his note for the balance, payable in install- 
 ments and secured by a mortgage on the land. He finally suc- 
 ceeds in paying for the property. But about that time a Single 
 Tax law is passed and he is at once forced to pay a tax of $300 
 a year. How much better off is he than he was before he bought 
 the land. None at all. He has lost the money and value he 
 paid for the property. And he would still be liable for the 
 unpaid purchase money notes. He could not sell the property 
 because no sane man would buy property upon which he would 
 have to pay the government a tax equal to a full rental for the 
 privilege of occupying it. No sane man would pay much for the 
 mere "shell." 
 
 In Chapter HI., Book 9, Mr. George admits that the land 
 could not be sold, and that his scheme would result in public 
 ownership of land, and he says that the former private land 
 owners should not receive any compensation for this loss. But 
 he says that the holders of vacant lands and lots would be com- 
 pelled to sell them. How could they sell that which has been 
 appropriated by the public? In Chapter I of the same book he 
 says that his scheme "would be in effect putting up the land at 
 auction to whoever would pay the highest rent to the state." Is 
 not this confiscation? It is confiscation of both the land iii the 
 rural districts and the lots in towns and cities. 
 
 Indictment No. 5. The Single Taxers exaggerate at least one 
 thousand-fold the amount of land and number of lots that are 
 being held out for use for speculative purposes, or in other words 
 to procure an unearned increment. As to our town and city lots, 
 the taxes and interest on the money invested in them prohibit 
 their being held out of use for any great length of time. When 
 the 7 to 9 per cent of interest and taxes exceeds the annual 
 increase of the market value of the lots, as is the case at present 
 in the vast majority of our towns and cities, the lots will be im- 
 proved as rapidly as there is any demand for houses. In fact, 
 the zeal of the owners of lots to make them bring in a yearly 
 income usually results in an excess of houses. The large sur- 
 plus of unemployed capital in this country is anxiously seeking 
 profitable investment in houses. That these causes lead to a 
 supply far in excess of the demand for houses is demonstrated 
 by the 23,000 vacant houses said to be in Philadelphia and the 
 vacant houses on every street in Chicago, and the same condition 
 
SINGLE TAX 187 
 
 exists in our towns and cities all over the country. Then why 
 should these lots be built upon? Vacant houses are not a credit 
 to any town nor a source of profit to their owners. And cer- 
 tainly no person wants to in any way entice our rural population 
 to move to our towns and cities in order to occupy these vacant 
 lots. The tide should be turned in the other direction — away 
 from the cities to quiet country homesteads. There are too 
 many people in our towns apd cities now. Whenever there is a 
 labor strike there are always, in good times as well as in bad 
 times, thousands of uneniployed who are eager to take the 
 places of the strikers. Houses and lots can be rented at a low 
 rental that hardly pays 6 per cent interest on the investment. 
 This ought to be free enough to suit the most fastidious. 
 
 As to our farm lands, the facts are clearly against the claims 
 of the Single Taxers. The world's demand for grains, vegetables, 
 fruits and meats is so great that no man can afford to deliberately 
 hold good farming lands out of use. If the owner does not 
 desire to live upon them and farm them himself, he can rent 
 them to others for a fair annual rental, and of course he will 
 do so. A man can rent his land out for what it will bring and 
 still hold it for an increase in price so he may be able to sell at 
 a profit. Why should he not do so? Will a duck swim? The 
 simple fact is that land owners do not to any material extent 
 withhold their land from use. They have to pay taxes on it 
 every year and it is but natural that they should make it yield 
 enough to pay the taxes and also pay as much as possible on 
 the money invested in it. And especially is this true at a time 
 when the price of the land is declining, as it has been in this 
 country for the last twenty-five years. Their lands are being 
 used either for cropping or grazing purposes. Surely no one 
 wants any more of our forests cut down, in order to increase 
 the area of cultivable land. Too many of our forests have been 
 cut down already by our citizens in their greed and zeal to put 
 land into use and make it yield a profit. The amount of farm- 
 ing land and the number of lots that are being held out of use 
 is very small indeed, and yet for the purpose of forcing these 
 lands and lots into use before there is any active demand for 
 them, the Single Taxer would destroy five or six millions of 
 homesteads and compel them to be yearly let "out to the highest 
 bidders in lots to suit," as Mr. George expresses it in his book. 
 
i88 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 What a queer old world we live in any way! Truly it takes all 
 kinds of men to make a world. 
 
 Indictment No. 6. What would become of the three or four 
 bilUons of mortgage debts that now are secured by these home- 
 steads? Is repudiation to be added to confiscation? It would 
 seem so. 
 
 But let us analyze this mortgage question, for our Single 
 Taxer who never stops to analyze anything and who has no use 
 for the facts and iigures shown by the government census re- 
 ports. We will see that not only would our mortgage debtors be 
 ruined, but that many of our mortgage creditors would be also. 
 The total amount of our mortgage debts in 1890 was $6,019,- 
 679,985. This was an increase of $2,404,839,985 since 1888, and 
 these mortgage debts now probably amount to ten billions of 
 dollars. These mortgages are secured by both the real estate 
 and the improvements thereon. Now let us suppose that the 
 public through the Single Tax system, has appropriated the land. 
 This throws the entire mortgage debt on the improvements and 
 such personal property as the debtor may have subject to execu- 
 tion. Of course, the debtor will not be able to pay the debt 
 after the real ownership of land has been taken from him, and 
 he will have to pay interest on the debt and also a full rental on 
 the land, if he chooses to remain on it. As we shall see further 
 on, this rental would absorb all the profits he could make out of 
 the land by tilling it, and he could not pay the annual interest 
 on the debt — much less the principal. The result would be that 
 the mortgage would be foreclosed on the improvements. This is 
 a most serious matter, because in 1890, 273,352,109 acres of our 
 improved farms were under mortgage and thousands of homes 
 in towns and cities were also encumbered. 
 
 I leave for the Single Taxers to say what the improvements 
 would sell for without the land. They have never been able to 
 agree among themselves what will be the status of the improve- 
 ments on real estate under their system. We know that in most 
 instances they would not sell for half enoug'h to satisfy the 
 mortgage debt, interest and costs of rent. The balance of the 
 judgment would be levied on such personal property as the 
 debtor might have and he would be turned out of house and 
 home a pauper. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the 
 personal property of the debtor would not sell for enough to 
 
SINGLE TAX 189 
 
 pay the deficit and the creditor would lose the greater part of 
 his debt, for in most instances mortgage farm loans are made 
 principally on the value of the real estate irrespective of the 
 improvements. It must be clear to all that the uncompensated 
 appropriation of the land of the nation by the general public 
 would result in ruin to our mortgage debtors and repudiation and 
 ruin to many of our mortgage creditors. 
 
 Indictment No. 7. But this is not all of the case against 
 the Single Tax by a great deal. There is probably more money 
 loaned out on personal security — on notes with sureties — than 
 there is on mortgage security. In reckoning the solvency of the 
 makers of these notes and their sureties the creditor looks prin- 
 cipally to the amount of the unincumbered real estate they own. 
 If the government by the Single Tax appropriates all of this land 
 it so far destroys the security of those notes and also so far 
 destroys the ability of the debtors to pay the notes. Hence suits 
 will be brought on the notes, the debtors will be stripped of their 
 improvements and personal property and even then the creditors 
 will probably lose a part of their claims. When we consider 
 the fact that the last census report shows that the people of this 
 country owed over twenty billions of dollars on those classes 
 of debts that could be readily ascertained and tabulated by our 
 census takers, and that the other debts amounted to nearly as 
 much more, we can form some faint conception of the disastrous 
 and far-reaching effects of the adoption of the Single Tax 
 system. Is it not perfectly plain that it would result in the 
 creditors absorbing the greater part of the personal property of 
 the nation and also the greater part of the improvements on our 
 real estate, and all this property they would hold free from tax- 
 ation? Yet the Single Taxers pose as the friends of the common 
 people ! 
 
 As we have seen, after exhausting the improvements and per- 
 sonal property of the debtors, in most cases the debt would 
 still be unpaid and there would be a loss to the creditor. The 
 rich creditor could stand this loss, as he would have plenty left 
 to satisfy not only his necessities but every conceivable luxury. 
 But not so with the poor creditors who have their savings or 
 small patrimony loaned out. This loss would be ■ heavy and 
 ruinous to them. The deposits in our savings banks amount to 
 $2,065,631,298. They are mostly loaned on real estate security. 
 
190 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 The Single Tax would ruin every savings bank in the country 
 and their depositors would lose their savings. Our people have 
 deposited in our national banks $2,106,600,000, and also fully as 
 much more in our private banks, trust companies, building and 
 loan associations, etc. Much of this money is loaned out either 
 directly or indirectly on real estate security. It is certain that 
 these depositors would lose enormously by the appropriation by 
 the government of the lands and securing these loans. 
 
 Therefore it is perfectly clear that the Single Tax would rob 
 over six millions of our citizens of their homes and personal 
 property, and rob the poorer class of our creditors of their sav- 
 ings, and bankrupt tens of thousands of our business men and 
 produce the worst panic ever known in the history of the world. 
 And yet Mr. George says in Chapter IV. of Book 9 that "this 
 measure would make no one poorer but such as could be made 
 a great deal poorer without being really hurt," and that "it would 
 impoverish no one.'' And his followers try to believe it. But 
 they dare not attempt to enter upon any proof in regard to the 
 matter. The facts are against them. It should also be remem- 
 bered that our business men are heavy creditors and a loss of a 
 material portion of their bills receivable would bankrupt them. 
 Yet this would be the inevitable result if the debtors of business 
 men were to be robbed of their lands and lots and they would 
 all have to go to paying rent. They woi-rid not be able to pay 
 their debts to business men. Surely our Single Tax friends 
 "know ivhat they do." 
 
 Indictment No. 8. But let us go a little deeper into this 
 question. It will be necessary to make a few calculations. In 
 his fine flights of oratory Mr. George did not stop to bother 
 with figures, and his disciples have inherited his weakness in the 
 science of mathematics. The reports of the census and statistical 
 departments of our government have no charm for them. We 
 will therefore have to do the calculating for them. 
 
 Their proposition is to throw all taxes on land alone. And 
 when the Single Taxer uses the word "all" he means just what 
 he says. Therefore Henry George was a free trader, and in 
 Chapter III of Book 9 of "Progress and Poverty" he makes a 
 strong argument against tariff duties ; and of course he was 
 opposed to our internal revenue laws because tobaccos and liquors 
 are personal property. And his followers are free traders almost 
 
SINGLE TAX 191 
 
 to a man. Then let us see how much of a burden this theory 
 of taxation would throw on land alone. 
 
 Let us first see what would be the annual tax rate or rental 
 under this system for state and local governments alone without 
 interfering with our present tariff and internal revenue laws. 
 
 The total property assessed for taxation in this country in 
 1890 was as follows : 
 
 Real estate ahd improvements J18, 956,556,675 
 
 Personal property 6,516,616,743 
 
 Total $25,473,173,418 
 
 The total taxes collected on this property in 1890 by state and 
 local governments amounted to $470,651,927. This makes the 
 average tax rate a very small fraction less than 2 per cent. It 
 will be noticed that the land and improvements are given to- 
 gether. Therefore we must next get at the probable value of 
 the land alone. In the state of Massachusetts the land and the 
 improvements are assessed separately, and in 1880 the land and 
 lots of the state were assessed at $587,824,672, while the im- 
 provements were assessed at $752,669,001. The improvements 
 amounted to 56 per cent and the lands and lots 44 per cent. In 
 states having large cities like Chicago, New York or Philadel- 
 phia the per cent of improvements would be considerably 
 larger, while in some of the sparsely settled Western states the 
 value of the lands would exceed that of the improvements. In 
 England the improvements are valued at £2,280,000,000, while the 
 lands and lots are only valued at £1,880,000,000. Therefore it 
 would seem that taking our country over the value of the lands 
 and of the improvements are about equal. And this was the 
 estimate of the census department in 1880, showing that at that 
 time the real estate of the country was assessed at $6,592,000,000, 
 while the improvements were assessed at $6,437,000,000. By 
 counting them of equal value in 1890 this gives us -the assessed 
 value of the land alone at $9,478,278,337. Throwing upon this 
 land the total expenses of the state and local governments for 
 that year — $470,651,927 — would give us an average tax rate of 
 about 5 per cent. That is to say, that the farmer who owns a 
 farm of 100 acres worth $50 per acre without improvements 
 would have to pay taxes to the amount of $250 per year on his 
 $5,000 worth of land. Under our present system, if we count 
 
192 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 his buildings and personal property at $2,000 (which is a liberal 
 estimate for the average farm) his taxes would only amount to 
 2 per cent on $7,000— $140. But as a rule the citizens in towns 
 and cities have more value in their improvements and personal 
 property than they have in their lots. 
 
 Let us take the typical shoe or dry goods merchant in the 
 ordinary county seat of from three to ten thousand inhabitants, 
 who owns his home and whose combined property is assessed at 
 $7,000, the same as our farmer above mentioned. Under our 
 present system of taxing all wealth alike, his taxable wealth would 
 be something like this : 
 
 Residence lot $1,000.00 
 
 House, barn, fences, etc 2,000.00 
 
 Furniture, carpets, piano, etc 500.00 
 
 Stock of goods in store 3,50o!oO 
 
 Total 57,000.00 
 
 Under our present system with an average tax rate of about 
 two per cent, his taxes will be $140. But under the Single Tax 
 five per cent rate on the lot alone his tax would only be $50, 
 while under the same system the farmer of the same wealth 
 would have to pay $250 on his land. Is not this an unjust dis- 
 crimination against the farmer and in favor of the merchant? 
 But let us consider the thousands of men in to*ns and cities 
 who have an abundance of personal property and no real estate. 
 They would escape taxation entirely under the Single Tax. Take 
 the store keeper who has say $7,000 worth of goods in his store, 
 and furniture in his house, etc., or take the money lender who has 
 $7,000 loaned out on interest. Is it right to relieve them from 
 taxation entirely and make the farmer owning a like amount 
 of property pay an annual tax of $250? That is precisely what 
 the Single Taxer proposes to do ! The stores, the factories, the 
 hotels and office buildings and the notes, etc., are means of pro- 
 duction, and why should not they be taxed the same as the 
 farmer's means of production? The land is the farmer's means 
 of production and it is absolutely criminal to relieve the means 
 of production of all other classes of citizens from taxation and 
 thereby greatly increase the burden of taxation on the farmer's 
 means of production. And when we remember that under the 
 single land tax, the wealthy owners of the billions worth of 
 property in the form of stores, factories, money, notes, mortgages. 
 
SINGLE TAX 193 
 
 stocks, bonds, street cars, railroad cars and engines, etc., would 
 escape taxation, the enormity of the proposition is more apparent. 
 These things are all means of production and they are piling up 
 millions of wealth for their owners every year, and they should 
 not .be relieved of taxes and the additional burden thrown upon 
 the farmers' means of production. From the land the farmers 
 produce the food we cat and the raw materials for the clothing 
 we wear. Why should all the burden of taxation be thrown 
 upon our primary means of production? The taxes must be 
 raised and it is an undeniable proposition that if we relieve one 
 class of citizens from taxation the taxes of the other classes will 
 be increased. If we relieve all personal property and improve- 
 ments from taxation we thereby of necessity increase the tax 
 on land. Surely no man can be found to deny these propositions. 
 
 That we have a large class of extremely wealthy citizens in 
 this country (mostly in cities) who own hundreds of millions 
 of dollars worth of personal property and very little or no real 
 estate, is true. Twenty millions of our citizens live in our 448 
 cities of ten thousand inhabitants and over. These people own 
 nine-tenths of the personal property and improvements of the 
 nation. Why should they be relieved from taxation? The con- 
 clusion cannot be avoided that if we relieve them from taxation, 
 the owners of the land and lots must bear the additional burden, 
 and that their taxes will be increased and they as a rule are least 
 able to bear it. 
 
 Let us take a much older country than ours for an illustration. 
 In Belgium in 1872 the total amount of taxes raised was 
 213,352,689 francs. Of this amount only 20,258,083 francs were 
 raised on land and improvements, and only 13,230,057 francs on 
 personal property. The remainder was raised by means of 
 trade licenses, stamp duties, custom and excise duties, income 
 and inheritance taxes, etc. Is it not clear that if all this tax 
 should be put upon the land alone the burden would be enormous 
 and utterly unbearable? Of course in a new and thinly settled 
 country where there are but few valuable improvements and 
 where there is but little personal property, and where the public 
 expenses are light and they are already of necessity mostly 
 raised on real estate, the adoption of the Single Tax would not 
 throw much extra burden, on real estate. This has been proven 
 in some of the new countries in Australia, where the Single 
 
194 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Tax has been adopted in a modified form. But conditions are 
 altogether different in older countries where the public expenses 
 are heavy and are mostly raised on things other than real estate. 
 The state of Pennsylvania levies no tax for state purposes on 
 real estate at all, but only on personalty, corporations, inheri- 
 tance, etc. 
 
 But let us consider the question solely as to the owners of 
 real estate and improvements. Here again we must simply 
 open our eyes to the facts and see that there are classes of real 
 estate owners whose per cent of improvements on their real 
 estate is much larger than is that of other classes of real estate 
 owners. By the exemption of improvements from taxation the 
 former would be greatly benefitted at the expense of the latter. 
 That this would again be a discrimination in favor of the rich 
 and against the poorer and middle classes is evident, because it 
 is the rich only that can own palatial residences, ten and twenty 
 story hotels and office buildings, and enormous store buildings 
 and factories covering whole squares. Their excess of improve- 
 ments over land is very large. 
 
 Who are the poorer classes of real estate owners who would 
 be hurt by this system? Let us first look to our towns and cities 
 The vast majority of our town and city lots are occupied for 
 residence purposes. The lots in any one portion of our towns 
 and smaller cities are of about the same value. Yet the improve- 
 ments upon them generally differ very widely in extent and 
 value. One lot owned by a rich man may have on it a house 
 worth ten, twenty or fifty thousand dollars, and which would be 
 filled with fine furniture, carpets, tapestry, paintings and musical 
 instruments of the value of many thousands of dollars, while 
 another lot in the same square and on the same street and of 
 the same market value, but belonging to a poor man, may have 
 on it a residence worth only a thousand dollars, and have in it 
 furniture, etc., not to exceed $500 in value. Is it not as clear 
 as the open light of day that if we relieve the improvements and 
 personal property of the former from all taxation we are favor- 
 ing the rich man much more than the poor man? And it must 
 be plain that the taxes now paid by the rich man on his fine 
 house and contents or his hotel, business block or factory, will 
 not be shifted to his lot alone, but that a great part will be 
 shifted to the lots of his poorer neighbors, and also to the small 
 
SINGLE TAX 195 
 
 farmers whose lands are worth more than their improvements 
 and personal property. 
 
 In a town or city there will be a thousand houses on 100 acres 
 of land, while in the country there will only be one house on 
 that amount of land. If we relieve the 1,000 town houses from 
 taxation a large part of that burden will of necessity fall upon the 
 farms where the per cent of improvements to a given amount of 
 land is small. 
 
 But let us for a moment consider the question solely from the 
 farm owners' standpoint, as among themselves. The first fact 
 to observe is that they too are divided into the rich and the 
 poor, as determined by the amount of land they own. The last 
 census shows that the farms of 100 acres and under in size were 
 2,440,006 in number, covering an area of 122,000,300 acres, and 
 their owners may be considered as the poorer class of farm own- 
 ers. There were also at that date 3,246,128 farms of over 100 
 acres in extent, covering an area of 973,836,000 acres, and their 
 owners may justly be classed among the rich class of land 
 owners. Now, the question is, which class has the greater per 
 cent of improvements and personal property as compared with 
 the value of the land alone. When this is determined we can 
 then easily tell which class is benefitted and which class is 
 injured by exempting personalty and improvements from taxa- 
 tion and throwing the whole burden of taxes on land alone. 
 
 Those who have any knowledge of farmers and farm life 
 know that it is on the large farms that we find the fine residences 
 and large barns, and also the latest and costliest farming imple- 
 ments and machinery, and also the large flocks of sheep, droves 
 of horses and hogs, and herds of cattle, running up in value 
 to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in value. The 
 small farmer lives in a cottage, and as he is forced to make the 
 most out of his land he cultivates the most of it and sells the 
 grain and vegetables. This leaves him but little land for grazing 
 purposes, and therefore he cannot have much live stock about 
 him. He must be content with a milk cow or two, a team of 
 horses and a few pigs. And he cannot afford expensive imple- 
 ments and machinery. He does his work in the old methods 
 as far as possible. Therefore, it must be clear that the owners 
 of large farms will be benefitted by the Single Tax, and that 
 the owners of small farms will be damaged by it. In the last 
 
196 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 analysis of the whole matter it is evident that the general 
 effect of the whole scheme will be favorable to all classes of rich 
 people and unfavorable to the holders of small farms and the 
 poorer classes of lot owners in our towns and cities, and that 
 the greater part of the taxes now paid by the rich' will be shifted 
 on the classes last named. The little that the latter would 
 gain by relieving their personal property and improvements 
 would be small indeed as compared with the increase in the taxes 
 on their lands and lots. The fact is that in many of our states 
 they are now relieved of taxation on much of their personal 
 property. In these states the Single Tax would bear heaviest 
 on them. And yet these are the very classes that most need 
 assistance and encouragement. Instead of increasing the taxes 
 on them we ought to exempt them from taxation altogether. 
 We cannot have too many small homesteads in town, city and 
 country. We ought to so legislate as to multiply them a thou- 
 sand-fold ; and we can do so if we only will. The experience 
 of other nations as well as our own points to an easy and certain 
 way. There is no need of trying any wild experiments. The 
 farms in France only average I2j4 acres in size. Every one 
 of them supports a family. We need to so legislate as to sub- 
 divide our land into small family homesteads that shall be cher- 
 ished and loved and handed down in the same family for 
 generations. 
 
 But let us consider the effect of a five per cent tax on our 
 six millions of home owners in town, city and country. This 
 is about what Mr. George thought the tax would be, for in 
 Chapter 19, Book IX, he says that his system would "very 
 nearly consume the value of the land," and five per cent is 
 about the average per cent of profit on the money invested in 
 real estate. So far as people in towns and cities are concerned 
 the five per cent on the value of their lots only would not be 
 oppressive because they own so much in improvements and 
 personal property which would be exempted from taxation. 
 Taking our merchant who owns $6,coo in improvements and 
 personal property and only $1,000 worth of land as an example, 
 if he is exempted from all tax on the $6,000, he can afford to 
 pay fifty dollars a year tax on his $1,000 lot, as that would be 
 much less than he now pays on all of his property. But the 
 burden that is shifted from him must fall upon somebody else. 
 
SINGLE TAX 197 
 
 As we have seen it would fall mostly upon the owners of small 
 farms and homes in towns and cities who have but little per- 
 sonal property and whose farms and lots are worth more than 
 the improvements upon them, as is so frequently the case. If a 
 mechanic owns a lot worth $1,000 and a cottage on it worth 
 $800, the five per cent on his lot would amount to considerably 
 more than his taxes under our present system. But still he 
 might be able to pay it if he does not get sick or lose his 
 employment. 
 
 But how will it be with the farmer whose tax has been raised 
 from $140 to $250 on one hundred acres of land? Those who 
 know anything about the profits of small farms for the last 
 25 years know that such a large additional burden as that would 
 be absolutely unbearable. Their very narrow margin of profits 
 was clearly shown by the elaborate investigation of the matter 
 by the Labor Commissioner of Connecticut in 1888. The ac- 
 counts covered 693 farms of that state averaging no acres 
 each, and showing a total capital employed of $3,810,742. The 
 total receipts, including products consumed by family, were 
 $707,153, and the total expenditures, including products consumed 
 in family support, but not counting labor done by the owner 
 and his family, were $680,990, thus showing a net profit of only 
 $16,163. It is safe to say that the farms of Connecticut could 
 not stand a tax of five per cent on their farm land. And what 
 is true of them is true of a majority of small farmers all over 
 the country. Many of them have not been able to make ends 
 meet, and have been forced to mortgage their farms in the last 
 few years, and many have lost their farms entirely. 
 
 And here is another very serious matter that must be con- 
 sidered. The census of 1890 showed that 886,957 of our im- 
 proved farms, aggregating 273,352,109 acres, were encumbered 
 by mortgages. Then we must squarely face the question as to 
 whether or not the owners of these encumbered farms could pay 
 their mortgage debts and the increased taxes? The above 
 statistics from Connecticut and the experience of small farmers 
 all over the country unite in saying that they could not. The 
 mortgages would be foreclosed by the wholesale and the creditors 
 would get the improvements and possession of the farms and 
 the debtors would be turned adrift. It is safe to say that the 
 farmers of the country will never favor the Single Tax, and 
 
198 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 that they will have a very poor opinion of those persons who 
 are trying to take their farms from them in this way. 
 
 Indictment No. g. — But the half has not yet been told in 
 regard to the deadly effects of the Single Tax. We have seen 
 that if the expenses of our state and local governments were 
 thrown upon land alone, the tax rate would be five per cent. 
 But in addition to this the Single Taxers propose to abolish 
 our tariff and internal revenue laws and throw upon our land 
 the enormous expenses of our general government ! ! Now of 
 course they have never calculated the effects of this. The gov- 
 ernment statistical and census reports have been open to them. 
 They have even been published in pamphlet form for free dis- 
 tribution by the government. And abstracts of them have been 
 published in cheap form in our newspaper almanacs. But our 
 friends do not want to be bothered with facts. Their minds are 
 too full of theories. I have already quoted freely from those 
 reports and I will be obliged to do so once more to find out 
 what this additional burden will be. 
 
 In determining this question I have thought best to take the 
 expenses of the government for 1896, as that was before our very 
 honorable war with Spain was begun, and also before our very 
 dishonorable war with the Philippines was begun, and the ex- 
 penses for that year were about normal. The reports of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury show that the expenses of the gov- 
 ernment for 1896 amounted to $748,369,469. If to this we add 
 the $470,651,927 annual expenses of our state and local govern- 
 ments we have a total annual tax of $1,219,021,396 that our 
 Single Tax friends propose to saddle on our land and lots every 
 year. As we have seen the land and lots are now assessed at 
 $9,478,278,337. This would give us an annual tax rate on our 
 real estate alone of nearly 13 per cent ! ! Still carrying the 
 illustration of the mechanic in the city who owns a lot worth 
 $1,000 and the farmer who has a farm worth $S,ooo, this would 
 make the annual tax of the mechanic $130 and of the farmer 
 $650. And yet we are gravely told that the Single Tax would 
 give us "free land." The mechanic might possibly stand this, 
 but it is absolutely certain that the farmer could not. He could 
 not protect himself by raising the prices of his farm products 
 because under free trade any material increase here of the price 
 over the average world price, would bring farm products to us 
 
SINGLE TAX 199 
 
 from all over the world. And even if the farmer could raise 
 the price of his products to correspond to the increased • taxes 
 on his land, this would be shifting the tax to the consumers in 
 our towns and cities and the objects of the city Single Taxers 
 would be defeated. They do not want to pay any tax either 
 directly or indirectly. 
 
 Other points might be made against the Single Tax, but I 
 have already exceeded the space allowed for this article. I 
 think the nine indictments with the facts and statements given 
 are sufficient to demonstrate the utter folly and injustice of the 
 system. 
 
 There are plenty of ways of preventing land monopoly that 
 would not have the unjust, demoralizing and disastrous effects 
 of the Single Tax. Progressive taxation would be a good remedy 
 with no disastrous effects. The same is true of a system of 
 graduated income and inheritance taxation. A system em- 
 bracing the exemption of homesteads from taxation, heavy stamp 
 duties on sales of real estate not to be used as homesteads, the 
 exemption of homesteads from mortgages, and the establish- 
 ment of government agricultural villages for the very poor, 
 would be a more complete remedy, with no bad effects whatever. 
 And to these could be added the income and inheritance tax. 
 There is no possible excuse for so visionary, revolutionary and 
 disastrous a scheme as the Single Tax.