The Single Tax: Limited or Unlimited
Henry George
[An editorial dated 17 August, 1889, The Standard]
During my absence in Europe an able and interesting series of
articles by Thomas G. Shearman, meeting certain objections made
against the single tax, has been published in THE STANDARD. These
articles furnished what basis there was, beyond shear misquotation and
misrepresentation, for the notion that THE STANDARD had changed its
course, and was endeavoring to lower the aims of the movement.
I have sufficiently spoken of this notion and the effort to diffuse
it I wish now to speak of some questions brought up by these articles,
and to some extent debated among our friends.
Among the letters received by THE STANDARD have been a number
debating, and some of them with much ability, the question whether our
aim should be to take all, or something less than full economic rent.
But as there were some misapprehensions, and as the discussion was
largely as to what I held, I have preferred not to give them place
until I could say something myself.
Among these communications was one, under date of July 10, from the
secretary of the Central single tax club of Cleveland, Ohio, inclosing
the following resolutions passed by that club:
Whereas, The question having arisen among single taxers
as to the advisability of permitting the holders of land titles to
retain a percentage of the economic rent, not to exceed one-tenth,
as compensation for collecting said economic rent; therefore be it
Resolved, That we, the Central single tax club of Cleveland, Ohio,
do most emphatically assert our adherence to the principle of taking
the entire economic rent for public uses, and protest against
anything having the appearance of a compromise with landlordism; and
that a copy of these resolutions be sent to THE STANDARD for
publication.
I, too, would like to take the entire economic rent. But I wish the
Cleveland club had added another resolution explaining how they
propose that it shall be done, for it is here that the difficulty
comes.
But first as to Mr. Shearman:
Whatever percentage of economic rent he may think will suffice for
the necessary expenses of government, he is as good a single tax man
as those who wish to take it all, for he is for one single tax, or to
speak more precisely, for levying all taxes on one single source of
revenue - land value. If that does not constitute a single tax man,
what does? In fact it was as a title for the first of his tracts we
published, that the term "the single tax," which has been
since so generally accepted by our friends, was first used in
connection with the movement, It was I who first used the terms "single
tax limited" and "single tax unlimited," which have
lately been so much employed. I did so in a speech in New York, some
time during last year, in referring to the two sets of men who were
working together harmoniously for the single tax - the one with the
idea of substituting that means of raising revenue for those now
employed, and the other with the idea of not stopping at that, but
going further and taking as near as might be the whole value of land
for the uses of the community. I spoke, if my memory serves true, of
Thomas G. Shearman and John DeWitt Warner as representatives of the
single tax men limited, and of myself as a single tax man unlimited.
But I went on to say that for practical purposes there was no
difference between us, and that the men who only proposed to
substitute the single tax for existing taxes were capable of doing as
good work for the cause in its present stage as we who, when the time
came, proposed to go further.
I then heard no objection to this from the gentlemen who since they
have become so suddenly stricken with yearnings for the company of
socialists and anarchists have come to look on single tax men limited
as protectors of landlords, and schemers to degrade the movement into
a "soulless, conscienceless fiscal reform." Nor in speaking
so was I departing in the slightest from my original position, or
making any bid for an alliance with a political party. I was but
repeating what I had said at the first, and had always said, that we
must win and would win our decisive battle by the aid of men not at
the time willing to go the whole length we wished to go.
In "Progress and Poverty," book VIII, chapter II, entitled "How
equal rights to the land may be asserted and secured," I say:
"We have weighed every objection, and seen that
neither on the ground of equity nor expediency is there anything to
deter us from making land common property by confiscating rent.
"Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent or land values must
necessarily be increased just as we abolish other taxes, we may put
the proposition into practical form by pro- posing - To abolish all
taxation save that upon land values."
Is it not this that Mr. Shearman proposes to do?
So far from having lowered "the pure white banner of the
movement" by gladly welcoming to the columns of THE STANDARD Mr.
Shearman's able articles, or approving of the exclusion from its
columns of ranting and misrepresenting attacks upon "Shearmanism,"
I would have been inconsistent with all I have ever written or
declared if I had failed to greet and to treat the single tax men
limited as honored co-workers. Nor in drawing the line, as I did,
between the single tax men limited and the single tax men unlimited,
was the thought in my mind that of differentiating the men 1
represented from those not willing to go so far. It was that of
relieving such men from the idea that in working with us for the
single tax they were committing themselves to our whole programme. My
thought was not merely to assure such men of our understanding on this
point, so that they might the more readily join us, and work with us,
but to let others understand it. For there are large classes on whom
the advocacy of men who do not go the whole way exerts more influence
than that of men who do.
If I may be permitted to offer advice to the Cleveland Single tax
club, it would be to hold their own individual opinions, but to
rescind their resolution at the next meeting. It is a mistake for them
to put anything in the way of any limited single tax man joining them.
And if they can get any limited single tax man like Thomas G. Shearman
it would, in my opinion, be a mistake for them to try to make a single
tax man unlimited out of him, if they could. When one dog gets another
to help him catch hares, he does not insist that he shall follow in
his track. On the contrary the two dogs take somewhat different paths.
And they catch more hares because of their divergence.
To insist, if that were possible, that all advocates of the single
tax should see the truth at precisely the same angle and to precisely
the same extent, and should present it in precisely the same way,
would be very stupid. "So many men, so many minds." and the
mind that may be impervious to one method of approach is often open to
another. As St. Paul saw, mental digestions that may reject the strong
meat of the word may receive the milk with avidity. When railroads
were only being talked about, the man who would have said, " I am
of course no such visionary as to imagine that carriages can ever be
drawn at the rate of fifty miles an hour, and I pay no attention to
the wild talk about the social, political and industrial changes to be
wrought by this invention in which some imaginative people indulge;
but I am convinced that goods and passengers can be carried at least
twice as fast as by horses and at most at half the cost, and that a
good profit can be made by investing in these steam roads," would
with certain very important classes of people have had more influence
than one who could have foreseen and pictured all the marvels the
railway has wrought .
Dr. W. C. Wood of Gloversville, writing to THE STANDARD, says:
"I have heard it said of Beth Green that in
establishing a hatchery in Connecticut he told the fishermen that he
came to make fish cheap. Whereupon they hindered him all they could.
This was a lesson to him, and when he commenced operations in New
Jersey he told the fishermen there that he came to make fish plenty.
He got all the help they could give him.
"And so, it seems to me, it is a better way to approach the
farmer by showing him that the single tax will stop the robbery he
suffers through direct and indirect taxation than by calling his
attention to the fact that the single tax will destroy the selling
value of his land.
"Let us conceal nothing, deny nothing, keep the whole scheme
before the people, but present it in the manner best calculated to
secure a hearing."
In the articles that have been printed in THE STANDARD from time to
time since March last, Mr. Shearman has taken up, one after the other,
the objections to the single tax which have been made on both sides of
the Atlantic by men like Mr. Atkinson, Professor Harris and others,
whose position as "statisticians," professors, etc., gives
them weight with the general reader. He has admirably made the
following points:
1. Instead of land values not being sufficient to permit the present
expenses of government to be defrayed by the single tax, they are far
more than sufficient, and that as shown by an analysis of the official
figures for the city of Boston, the state of Connecticut and the
united kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland (cases quoted in support
of the opposite view) the revenues now raised by taxation of all kinds
could be defrayed by a tax on land values without taking more than
two-thirds of the ground rent now appropriated by landowners.
2. That even in new and sparsely settled communities a tax on land
values alone would suffice to defray all the expenses that ought to be
charged on such communities.
3. That to abolish all taxes in favor of the single tax would not
interfere with the security of possession or of improvements.
4. That so far from the single tax exempting the owners of railroads
and similar public franchises from contributing their just share to
the public revenues, it is the most efficient means of taxing such
franchises up to their full value.
5. That the objection "which is urged with the greatest air of
triumph by certain excellent college professors and others" that
the single tax has been tried for ages in such countries as India,
Egypt , etc.- "and just look at them"- is in utter ignorance
both of the facts and the principle.
In all this, and especially in his marshalling of figures, Mr.
Shearman has rendered most essential service by placing in the hands
of our friends answers and arguments which few of them would have the
time and opportunity to work out for themselves. Nor is its usefulness
in the least lessened by the fact that his standpoint is that which he
has always occupied- that he proposes merely to substitute a tax on
land values for all the other taxes now resorted to for public
revenues.
This best describes Mr. Shearman's position - that he proposes to
substitute the single tax for other taxes now levied; or to put it in
the words which I used in "Progress and Poverty" he proposes
"to abolish all taxation save that upon land values." He has
proposed no limit to the tax on land values save that which he deems
necessary to the collection of the tax itself, and which he vaguely
puts at ten per cent, he does not propose to leave to land owners all
above sixty-five per cent of the economic rent, he merely declares
that statistics indicate that the present revenues of government could
be obtained by a tax which would take not more than sixty-five per
cent of economic rent. If more is required, then he expressly states,
he would take more. And while he declares that he would demand "only
so much of the ground rent as is needed by the state for public
purposes," he sets no limit to the increase of the needs of the
state, but on the contrary shows his appreciation of how these needs
will increase with the opportunities for supplying them, by declaring
that "the natural increase of taxation is always far more rapid
than the increase of either population or wealth."
But in speaking of the margin which he thinks it necessary to leave
in order to insure the collection of the tax on land values, Mr.
Shearman declares that even under the single tax unlimited this would
be "sufficient to induce men to enter into the business of land
holding." And in his final article, "A mere fiscal reform,"
replying to certain criticisms of Mr. Pentecost in the Twentieth
Century, occurs this paragraph:
"Some will say that no landlords ought to be
allowed at all. But such persons forget that neither rent nor
landlords can ever be abolished, without establishing absolute
communism. Rent is produced by natural laws which cannot be
repealed. Every one who gets a share of it is a landlord. Every
tenant who has "as good natured landlord," is himself a
landlord, because he puts into his own pocket some portion of the
natural rent which an ill-natured landlord would extract from him.
If the state tries to be the sole landlord it will fail, because
state officers have not omniscient wisdom, and individuals will keep
in their pockets a large share of the real rent. But, the state can
leave the collection of rent to private landlords and can then
extract a regular proportion of that rent from them. The wisest of
men cannot extract a drop of milk from hay. But a very simple man
can let his cows extract milk from hay and then he can milk them
easily enough. The farmer must leave some milk for the calves, or he
will soon have no cows. And the state must leave some rent for its
servants, the landlords, or it will have no efficient tax
collectors. "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider his ways
and be wise." Ants keep their cows the tiny aphides. The aphis
sucks milk from leaves; and the ant stands by, patiently, until it
sees that the aphis is full; and then it quietly sucks most of the
milk from the aphis. But the ant is wise enough to leave to the
aphis enough milk to live upon."
It is much more than doubtful whether those who regard the single tax
as a proposition for robbery will feel at all grateful to Mr. Shearman
for his suggestion that landlords must be kept in existence in order
to be milked. On the contrary they are more likely to consider his
proposition, which, he explains in another paragraph, is to leave them
enough to live upon if they are active, busy men, only the adding of
insult to injury.
But on the other hand the idea of leaving any vestige of landlordism
is repugnant to men who are aiming at the utter abolition of the wrong
which allows one man to step between another and the bounty of his
Creator and exact a tribute from his toil for the use of the natural
elements to which our first and highest perceptions tell us that all
men have equal rights. It is against this idea, I fancy, that the
resolutions of the Cleveland club are intended to protest.
Anything like a careful reading of Mr. Shearman's articles will,
however, show that the idea conveyed by this paragraph to the minds of
those who have been accustomed to use the term landlordism as
expressive of that system which has everywhere enslaved and robbed the
masses of men, is not the idea that was in Mr. Shearman's mind. As is
evident even in this paragraph, and as other passages in these
articles clearly show, Mr. Shearman has slipped into the use of the
words landlord, landowner, and landholder, as if they were synonymous
with each ether and. indeed, with the term land user. Taken literally
and on its face, this paragraph would seem to indicate that Mr.
Shearman supposes that in order that the community should obtain its
proper and natural revenue, economic rent, every land user must have a
landlord whose function it shall be to extract economic rent from him,
in order that in its turn the community may tax it from the landlord.
Mr. Shearman could never seriously have thought this, for no one can
know better that even under present conditions, a very large
proportion of land users are at the same time land owners, having no
landlord between them and the state. And no one can know better than
he that the effect of an increase of the taxation of land values would
he to reduce the selling price of land, and so to increase the
proportion of those who owned or held directly of the state the land
they used. Any considerable increase of taxation on land values, even
to sixty-five per cent of economic rent, accompanied, as it would be
sure to be, with the expectation of further increase, would so greatly
reduce the selling value of land that but very few landlords pure and
simple could long remain, since people who wished to make permanent
use of land would find it easy to buy the land outright , or obtain it
without payment in the abandonment of land by speculative holders
that would follow such an installment of the single tax.
What Mr. Shearman is thinking of is not landlords, in the strict
sense of the term, but land owners, the term he uses in the same
connection in other parts of the same article, and even land users, as
is evident from this sentence in a previous article:
"Land is never, except perhaps during war, to be
taxed literally up to its full annual value. A margin is always to
be left, sufficient to make it an object for some person to collect
from the land itself, or from its occupants, the natural rent, and
to pay the tax to the state. No one proposes to make this margin
less than ten per cent."
This makes it perfectly clear what is in Mr. Shearman's mind. Neither
landlords nor land owners, in the strict use of the term, can collect
rent from land. Only the land user can do that. Without use the most
productive land in the world could yield neither rent nor anything
else. Mr. Shearman's illustration is only intelligible, and consistent
with what he has said elsewhere in the same articles, when "land
users" is read into the term "landlords." Then it is
perfectly correct. The leaves are natural opportunities; the aphis are
the users of natural opportunities, and the ant is the community. It
is as true of a community as it is of an individual landowner that
there is no way of getting rent from land save by permitting its use.
And it is also true that to those who use land there must be enough
left of the produce of their labor to enable them to live, and that to
secure the efficient use of land this must be left and more. But it is
not true, I take it, that what must thus be left to the land user is
necessarily any part of economic rent. What, to my mind, must be left
is wages, the produce of the use minus economic rent-the payment to
the community for the special privilege accorded in the use of land
having special advantages and which others also would like to use.
In the present situation there is no practical difference between
those of us who wish finally to take the last penny of economic rent
and Mr. Shearman, and we can well say with the Farmer's Voice, "May
his tribe increase"- a benediction, by the bye, which in the
present stage of economic thought among farmers, an organ of theirs
would be hardly likely to apply to one who put obtrusively to the
front that aspect of our aim which is expressed by "the abolition
of private property in land." Since, obviously, we cannot take
all rent at one step, we will all agree that we must get to the point
of taking sixty-five per cent before we can get to the point of taking
one hundred. And even supposing that that is all that Mr. Shearman
proposes, sixty-five per cent is a pretty good installment to begin
with, and if we can get people up to the point of demanding that, we
shall be a good deal more than half way towards our goal.
But even the theoretical difference is very small. The only
restriction that Mr. Shearman would really place upon the taking of
the largest amount of economic rent is that it shall not he taken for
the mere sake of taking, but that it shall be taken for the needs of
the state, that is, because the state can make good use of it. And one
has but to look at our streets, our roads, our wharves and docks, and
to consider in how many ways the community might use larger revenues
for the benefit of all, to realize that no matter how large economic
rent may be, there will never be any necessity of leaving it to
private individuals because no good public use can be found for it.
The only theoretical point worth discussing is as to how near the
taking of the whole of economic rent it would be possible in practice
to come.
This is a point as to which I am not and never have been clear. Nor
do I think that any one at present can say with anything like
precision how near we may be able, when we get so far as to attempt
it, to take the whole of economic rent for public purposes. This
uncertainty arises not merely from the fact that we have not had
experience to guide us, but also from the fact that the conditions of
society and habits of thought must be greatly changed in the greater
freedom and better material conditions that must result from more
moderate applications of the single tax principle. I am convinced that
with public attention concentrated on one single source, of public
revenues, and with the public intelligence and public conscience
accustomed to look on the payments required from that , not as an
exaction from the individual, but as something due in justice from him
to the community, we could come much closer to taking the whole of
economic rent than might at present seem possible. Yet I regard it as
certain that it must always be impossible to take economic rent
exactly, or to take it all, without at the same time taking something
more and trenching on what in justice ought to be left to the
individual. If the members of the Cleveland club will attempt to
formulate any plan for taking full economic rent , no more, no less,
they will find that they can no more do it than they can draw a
theoretically true circle, or make a line that will fulfill the
geometrical definition. Theoretical perfection pertains to nothing
human. The best we can do in practice is to approach the ideal. And
the best the members of the Cleveland club or any one else could do in
this regard would be to formulate some plan that should take about the
whole of economic rent - that is to say, which should compensate for
taking something too much from some individuals by taking something
too little from others.
But would they consider that the taking of too much from some
individuals would be fairly compensated for in this way? Would they
not, rather, when they came to think of it, regard such compensation
very much as they would regard the cutting out of a coat or a pair of
boots, on the principle that undue tightness in some places should be
compensated for by undue looseness in others - or the administration
of justice on the theory that the conviction of innocent men
compensated for the escape of guilty men? Would they not in this case,
just as they would in the case of a coat or a pair of boots, or the
administration of justice, prefer that the errors should be on the
safe side? And would they not deem the safe side, the side of the
individual? Is it not better that the state should, on the whole, get
something less than its exact due than that individuals should be
compelled to pay more than they ought to be called on to pay? If so,
we must in any case leave a margin.
This I have always seen. What that margin should be I have never
attempted to formulate, and have never put it at ten per cent or at
any other per cent, What I have always stated as our aim was that we
should take the whole of economic rent "as near as might be."
As we advance in the application of the single tax, speculative land
values will rapidly disappear, and land will become less and lese
valuable to the mere owner, while remaining just as valuable to the
user. Mere landlords will thus steadily tend to disappear, and land
users will tend to become owners. Or rather they will tend to become
nominal owners, for while they will retain that security of possession
and that power of transferring possession that now attaches to
ownership, the state, in taking a larger and larger proportion of the
value, will in greater and greater degree make the whole people the
real owners. But we shall steadily and rapidly approach the point when
there will be no landlords in the strict sense-that is to say, no
landowners drawing rent from land users for the use of land alone.
Landlords we will continue to have in the colloquial sense, and must
continue to have them so long as there are people who travel and who
wish to stay in hotels for longer or shorter times, so long as there
are some people so situated that they prefer to hire rooms by the week
or month or houses by the year, or to use buildings or other
improvements that they do not care to, or are not able to, buy
outright . These "landlords," as they are called - though
economically they are both land owners and capitalists at the same
time - will in their charge for the use of the buildings or other
improvements, also collect from these transient land users a rent for
the use of valuable land, and this the community will take from them
again its "nearly as may be," in the tax on land values.
These are the landlords that Mr. Shearman doubtless had in his mind
when he spoke of the necessity of landlords to the collection of rent
by the state.
Now, when we get within appreciable distance of the point of taking
all economic rent, how are we to continue? This, though now purely a
theoretical question, will then become a practical question, for if we
strive to go to the point of theoretical perfection - that of taking
the whole economic rent, the selling value of land would disappear,
and we should no longer have the same basis for making the assessment
of land that we had so long as that remains. Three courses would be
open to us:
1. We might simply shift our assessment from the selling value of
land to the using value of land, which would remain though the selling
value by reason of the single tax should disappear.
2. We might assume on the part of the community the formal ownership
of land, and let it out from time to time to the highest bidder.
3. We might stop short of attempting to take the full value, and
leave such a small margin to the owner or holder as would give a
selling value by which to assess.
Taking everything together and judging as well as one can judge at
this distance from conditions that will prevail when this question
becomes a practical one, it seems to me that the last course would be
the best. It has many advantages, and the only objection that I can
see to it is that in this way we could not collect the full amount of
economic rent. But this disadvantage also attaches to other plans. It
must, in fact, in greater or less degree attach to any plan that will
not be open to the opposite, and, as it seems to me, more serious
danger, of taking more than economic rent .
The first plan is by no means impracticable. For it is the estimate
of the use value or expected use value of land that always determines
its selling value. But to ascertain the use value of land under
conditions in which selling value has disappeared and the only letting
or transfer of the possession of land is with improvements, would
necessitate the fixing on each piece of ground of a judicial
assessment of rent with little to guide it but public opinion. We
should not only lose that quick appreciation of values which comes
with the enlistment of individual interests , but though public
opinion might be greatly improved in this respect , it seems to me
that the natural disposition to be on the safe side with regard to the
individual, and to be slow about increasing rents where there is no
tangible change in values , would result in leaving a considerable
uncollected margin-probably as much, and possibly more, than it would
be necessary to leave under the third plan.
As to the second plan, there are very serious objections in my mind
to the formal assumption of ownership of land not needed for community
uses, and to the letting out of land by lease. But without entering
into those which relate to the increased complexity of administration
and dangers of collusion and corruption, this mode of treating land
would certainly engender speculation. The shrewd or fortunate bidder
would make money by getting land at a rent that during the term of the
lease would be less than the economic rent, and the too sanguine or
less fortunate bidder would lose. But on the whole, would not the
margin be against the community, and the failure to get the whole of
economic rent be likely to be at least as great as though the third
plan were adopted?
But this question of how we can come nearest to taking the whole of
economic rent is not merely at present only a theoretical question -
it is a question on which we will all have more light as we advance
further on our road. That road stretches before us for a long distance
clear and plain. Whatever we may deem it best to do when we have
carried the single tax to the point when with the next step selling
values will vanish, what we have now to do is to get the single tax
instituted - to abolish all taxation save that upon land values .
There is enough work in this to call forth all our energies.
And it is well also to remember that the great benefit of shifting
taxation on land values, and appropriating at least all but a small
fraction of economic rent, is not so much in the great fund which it
will give for public uses without hampering industry or taking from
any one what his labor or his thrift entitles him to have. It is in
setting free productive forces and securing equitable distribution, by
destroying land speculation and monopoly; by opening to labor its
natural and necessary field and by removing the restrictions now
imposed on production and exchange. No little margin that we may have
to leave to landholders by reason of the impossibility of attaining
theoretical perfection through human laws and agencies can prevent us
from securing these advantages.
|