Is a Unified Georgist Campaign Possible?

Edward J. Dodson

[Originally written 30 August, 2006; Updated 8 June, 2009]

The Georgist Movement is in its second century of existence and activism. As we know, the earlier decades were incredibly exciting, with Henry George providing both the philosophical inspiration and political spark. His death at a relatively young age left the movement without cohesive leadership, although many dedicated and competent individuals continued the work.

By the 1920s, the public memory of Henry George was largely gone, although thousands of people still carried the "Single Tax" torch. Final attempts in the United States to capture state and national political office under a unified political party failed. Georgists in the United States realized that any future success would depend upon the survival of a core group with a deep appreciation for the principles contained in Henry George's writings. The Henry George School of Social Science was founded with this purpose in mind; the effort was replicated in other countries around the globe. The availability of George's writings was assured by the establishment of the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation. And, the third arm of the movement's efforts in the United States arose with the founding in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania of the Henry George Foundation of America. Building on the legislative success of the Foundation's first generation of leaders, a steady effort emerged to work with civic and elected leaders to restructure the way their communities raised revenue from the taxation of property.

As the saying goes, we stand on the shoulders of those who have come before. Our successes today, difficult as they are, occur because of the many years of very difficult field work.

The resources of our movement worldwide remain modest and, of course, must be judiciously utilized. In the United States, Canada and Australia, the bulk of our energy has been focused at the community level and on deepening the penetration of the taxation of land values, where toeholds have been established but have also been lost under the pressure of vested interests and economic expediency. At the same time, a broader public adoption of our philosophical principles requires us to provide our fellow citizens with a broader range of policy choices than is being provided elsewhere. Our vision of a just future is one in which all public revenue comes from the fund of rents arising from our aggregate labor and public-private investment in capital goods.

Working to convince local taxing authorities to adopt "land-value taxation" or the "two-rate property tax" has been a strategic decision based on political realities. Most people within the United States -- and in all of the world's social democracies -- believe that change is best achieved incrementally. That said, the term used by some political scientists to describe how public policy changes are made in the United States is "disjointed incrementalism." One of our challenges, I suggest, is to offer a far more integrated approach to incremental change than has been the case to date. This involves the development of policy proposals that move our society incrementally but steadily toward just socio-political arrangements.

I have my own views on what a broad incremental program ought to comprise. Two of my ideas have generated little or no response (i.e., neither enthusiastic support nor strong opposition). The first is to replace existing Federal Individual Income Tax structure with what I describe as a progressive but simplified system. The objective of doing so is to shift the burden of income taxation from income flows "earned" from producing goods or offering services to flows that are "unearned" and in high proportion gained by rent-seeking activities. In this sense, a truly progressive tax structure would exempt all individual incomes up to some maximum (say, the national median income). No other exemptions or deductions would be permitted. Then, for ranges of income above this level an increasing rate would be applied up to some maximum rate. What this achieves, I believe, is a combination of simplification with true progressivity, without being overly confiscatory of earned income flows. This same structure (with much lower rates of taxation applied should be proposed for state level governments).

A second proposal is to press for governments to replace existing government debt with fully amortizing bonds (i.e., bonds that return scheduled principal as well as interest to bondholders). This new type of bond would be issued as outstanding bond debt matures. Laws would be needed to require that governments raise sufficient revenue via taxation and other sources to balance their budgets, the budgets to include the cost of servicing the national debt. By this method, the national debt of any government would be repaid within a generation. The ranges of income and the tax rates to be applied would be determined based on forecasts of revenue needed.

The above measures are not meant to supplant our call for the direct collection of rent from all identified sources. However, in my view, they are important transitional measures likely to find public support and draw attention to our primary issue.