| 
 Is the Taxation of Income Socialism?Joseph Thompson
 [An excerpt, "No Sir! No Socialism!"
          reprinted from an undated pamphlet,
 Simple Talks on Taxation, published by the author]
 
 
 
            
              | ...Seems to me something ought to
                be done about this tax business, Bob. What do you think?
 ... What
                ought to be done, Harry, is for the public to collect what it
                creates. What really belongs to it.
 ... What do you mean -- "belongs
                to it"?
 ...I mean
                the public should collect the land rental and nothing else.
                ...And not tax anything else! Why
                that wouldn't be fair! Doesn't the public create the value of
                everything?
 ...Sure. But the public
                creates land value by just being there. Everything else takes
                work to give it value.
 ... Everything
                else?
 ... Yeah. Take your necktie. You
                can easily list more than a hundred people that had something to
                do with producing that tie. The designer, the weaver, the
                teamster, the people that made the loom. Just make a list. But
                there isn't a living soul that can take credit, or ought to be
                paid, for making the face of the globe.
 ... But
                what about the landlord? He paid good money for the land, didn't
                he?
 ... No. Not exactly for the
                land. He bought the privilege of location among people. He, or
                his forebears, may have paid for the title, but the people
                created the value, so he bought the privilege of collecting what
                they create.
 ... But he
                owns it, doesn't he?
 ... No. Not the way a man owns a
                wheelbarrow or a violin. You can only say that he has acquired
                the title.
 ... What's
                the difference?
 ... Well, what they own cost
                something. What the landlord owns didn't cost anything.
 ... Wha'd'
                you mean! Didn't cost anything?
 ... All right What did it cost?
 ... Sa-ay!
                He probably paid plenty for it!
 ... Did he pay somebody to make
                it?
 ... Of
                course not. It was always there.
 ... If he paid plenty for it, it
                must have value.
 ... It sure
                has!
 ... Who made the value?
 ... I don't
                know. But land keeps going up.
 ...Everywhere?
 ...Well,
                wherever there's people that want land.
 ...Then we can say that while
                people don't make the land, they make, or create its value,
                can't we?
 ...I s'pose
                so.
 ...Shouldn't the people be paid
                for what they create?
 ...Yeah.
                But the landlord owns the land, all right.
 ... So he has the right to hold
                up, or charge, other people who want to use it.
 ... Sure.
 ...He has the right to collect an
                income that is made by the people?
 ...Sure.
 ... Then, when he collects what
                the people make, the people have to take a big chunk out of what
                you make and what I make, and out of what our capital earns, to
                replace the income they create and he collects.
 ... Why
                not? He bought the title to the land, didn't he?
 ... From who?
 ... From
                some other feller, I s'pose.
 ... And who'd the other feller buy
                it from?
 ...Sa-ay!
                What're you driving at? How should I know?
 ... I'm driving at one thing you
                should know -- and that is that the first feller who sold the
                land title didn't pay anything for it because it was there and
                it didn't cost anything to make it As you said a minute ago, the
                landlord bought die title. That's one way that land is different
                from wheelbarrows and violins. You can carry them away, but a
                land title is only an evidence that he has sole right of 
                occupancy, or to charge for occupancy, and that's not really a
                right.
 ... What do
                you mean -- it isn't a right?
 ... I mean that you could pay for
                some power or condition that is an artificial right and not a
                real one.
 ... What
                would it be if it wasn't a right?
 ... Well, in this case, the power
                to collect what the public creates would be better described as
                a privilege.
 ... What's
                the difference?
 ... Don't you see any?
 ... No.
 ...The difference is that a right
                is something that is a part of yourself. You have a right to the
                possession of your own body. You should have a right to whatever
                you make, either the article itself or the money paid to you for
                your work. A privilege is something artificial, something
                created by legal enactment.
 ...Well, if
                it's created by law, that ought to satisfy you.
 ... I didn't say "law,"
                I said "Legal enactment."
 ...What's
                the difference?
 ...To me, a law is something that
                -- Well, let's say, that couldn't be repealed. Like the law of
                gravity or the Mendelian law of heredity. Like the physical law
                under which water, by certain temperature variations, turns to
                steam, fluid or ice. Then there are things that seem like laws,
                Gresham's for example, "bad money drives out good money."
                But most of the rulings that we call "laws" ought to
                be called nothing more than "legal enactments." And
                any man's "right" to collect land rental comes from a
                damn poor "law."
 ...What's
                poor about it?
 ... What's poor is that he paid
                some man who had nothing to do with its being there, for the "right"
                to tell you and me to "keep the hell out of here!",
                and if we say "Why should we? We create its value," he
                can say "Well, you go on creating it and I'll go on
                collecting it, so get out!" And, damn fools that we are,
                we'd have to get out. Now if he was paying the land rental into
                the public treasury, where you and I would get the benefit of
                it, he'd have a real right He could say "I've paid you
                fellers what you have made it worth, and as long as I keep on
                paying, the place is mine," and we'd have to agree and say "That's
                fair enough, Mister, you're right" But, as it is, he's
                bought a privilege.
 ... Well,
                what's wrong with a privilege?
 ... Oh, nothing. Nothing at all if
                you're on the collecting end, but I should think that you, as a
                good American, would be the first to say that no man should have
                the legal power to live at your expense.
 ... Wha-d-yuh
                mean? At my expense?
 ...If you pay taxes because he
                doesn't -- If you pay him just to get out of your way -- he's
                living at your expense, and that's a privilege -- in my book.
 ... Well, I
                don't look at it that way. It sounds like Socialism to me. I
                think we all ought to pay taxes and sump-m oughter be done. But
                no Socialism! I hate Socialism! But, after all, the hell with
                worrying about that. How'd the game go? I hear the Giants lost
                again.
 ... I don't know. I don't follow
                the ball games.
 You don't? Gee! That sounds kind of
                un-American to me. Well, so long, Bob.
 ... So long, Harry. It's nice to
                think that the Income Tax isn't Socialistic.
 
 
 | 
 |