Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 18.djvu/241

SINGLE TAX. 197 SINGLE TAX. First, the appropriation of economic rent would yield suflicient revenue to defray all the legiti- mate expenditures of government. On the other hand, the abolition of all other taxes would dis- pose of a large army of tax gatherers, make the government simpler, and hence purer and less ex- pensive. Secondly, it would enormously increase the productivity of wealth by removing the taxes upon capital, production, and consumption which now repress or discourage industry, and l),' forc- ing into use and cultivation the lands now held idle for speculative pur])Oses. There could be no speculative holding of land for a rise in value if this value, when it accrued, would be appro- priated by the State. Finallv. the tax on rent could not be shifted, while it would preserve pri- vate property in everything except land and pre- vent socialism or the public management and operation of land. It is important to note that single taxers in the United States are in general vigorously opposed both to socialism and land nationalization. Economists have opposed with practical unanimitv the extreme theor,v upon which the single ta.x reform is based, involving, as is ad- mitted, the confiscation of economic rent without compensation, and the dual proposition that the failure to appropriate all land values, and any taxation of other values, are both species of robbery. Some of the objections most fre- quently urged against the single tax maj- be summarized as follows: (1) That land is similar to all other forms of wealth in respect to the fact that it consists of indestructible matter adapted by human exertions to satisfy human wants, and that in consequence George's distinc- tion between property in land and other forms of property is invalid. Jloreover, as many econo- mists have pointed out, a ver.v large proportion of rent consists merely of a fair average return to capital and labor which have been expended upon the land. (2) That private propertv in land is permitted and encouraged because it con- duces to the greatest good of the greatest number, and supplies a fund of wealth from which the State can easily derive all necessary revenues bv the ordinary methods of taxation; that, act- ing in this belief, we. as a people, have encouraged innocent parties to invest in lands, or to settle the public domain, clear it. till it, and bv their labor and residence invest it with a value: that under such circumstances arbitraril,v to con- fiscate the values so created would be funda- mentally inexpedient and intolerably unjust. (3) That the single tax would be inelastic, yielding too much revenue in some districts and too lit- tle in others, a dangerous surplus in times of peace, perhaps, and an equallv dangerous deficit in times of war and public cmergencv. (4) That the error of George's theory of distribution is shown b,v the facts, inter alin. that in many communities during the last fifty vears rents have fallen, not risen, while in the same period wages have risen with practical universalit,v. (5) That the single tax would prevent the utili- zation of the taxing power for sumptuary purposes (e.g. taxation of intoxicating liquors), for the protection of home industry, and for the im- provement of the present distribution of wealth (e.g. ^ progressive income tax). (0) That it is difficult, theoretically, to determine the value of land irrespective of the improvements upon it, that in practice the assessment of land is no- toriously inexact, and that the single tax would intensify the injustice from this une(|ual assess- ment. (7) Finally, it is denied that the single tax would appreciably facilitate the accessibility to the soil, help the farmer, reduce overcrowding in cities, for the reasons among others that the tenant class would be in no better position than at present, merely paying rent to the State in- stead of the private landlord, while the large number of small landowners would not only be expropriated, hut would in the future have to jiay large rentals to the State. While economists have with practical unanim- ity rejected the proposition to tax all economic rent and abolish all otlier taxes, a large number have advocated measures looking to the gradual appropriation by the State, either of all the fu- ture unearned increment of land, or of a larger share of this future unearned increment than is taken at the present time in taxes. This idea has met with particular favor in regard to urban land. .John Stuart Jlill advocated the appro- priation of the future unearned increment of land. Prof. Adolph Wagiier, the distinguished (iernian economist, advocates private ownership of agricultural land, but favors public owner- ship of urban land, which would, of course, bring into the public treasury all future increment in land values. The exemption of improvements for a period of .years, especially buildings, has met with favor, and, indeed, has been adopted in many European countries. This, so far as it goes, is in harmony with the idea of the single tax. The single tax movement is world-wide and probably is stronger than ever before, although its character has entirely changed since the first Jlayoralty campaign of Henry George in 1880. The old popular and political methods of agita- tion have been abandoned, the nuclei of agita- tion at present being clubs and single individuals jirominent in politics, journalism, and business, such as T. G. Shearman of Brooklyn, Tom L. .Johnson, ilavor of Cleveland, and Governor Gar- vin of Rhode Island. The latter two are the most conspicuous examples of politically successful single taxers. In the United States the single taxers act al- most altogether with the Democratic Party, to which they are particularly drawn, inasmuch as the Democratic Party is the party of tariff' re- form, and the single taxers. in accordance with their fundamental idea, are in favor of absolute free trade, regarding it as contrary to natural right to levy a tax on imports : on account of this fusion it is difficult to determine just how much progress the movement has made in the United States. In England the single taxers are adherents of the Liberal Party and endeavor to force it to espouse their views. The.v hold oMice in many English cities and make the claim that their adherents control the city of Glasgow. The single tax movement is less prominent on the Continent of Europe than in English-speaking countries, and can scarcel.y be said there to have gained a foothold. The single taxers are now endeavoring to se- cure, first, a separation in the assessments of property, of land values, and the value of im- ])rovements on land : and. second, what they call lionie rule in taxation, or the authorization of local political units to place a ta.x upon land