The herald., 1895-05-09

Gates to defend it against the objections
and arguments offered by those who have
given economic questions some serious
study. Let some one, at their me settings.
| raise the question whether the owners OF
| land would not shift the increased taxes
onto the tenants, and the single tax econ
omists will vie with one another for the
| pleasure of showing how the landlord
takes all he can now, and that any in
| crease In the tax must necessarily come
out of his pocket" But raise some real
objection the economists" are silent.
| This is what has taken place with regard
| to the arguments l have recently urged
against that shallow theory in The Her
aid. Seeing the arguments were uns
answerable they have sought to cover
their ignominious retreat in the form of
a advertisement" l refer to the com
munication OF W. s. G. in The Herald OF
the 5th instant.
The confidence exhibited by the new
convert to the single tax theory, whose
knowledge of economics is usually limited
to the few platitudes found in Progress
and Poverty and the columns of The Sim
gle Tax Courier. Ga rather poor equipment,
by the way. for a student of social ques-
tions) is often in amusing contrast to his
attitude when the weak points of that
pseudo economic theory are exposed.
Sorely pressed he will protest that his
reform is not offered as a cure-all for all
the economic ills that flesh is heir to.
You will, perhaps, be informed in
facetious desperation, that the single tax
is not warranted to cure consumption or
snake bites; avert cyclones or earth
quakes, or abolish death and taxation.
1t will be mcdestly urged as at least "a
fundamental reform" that must precede
any more comprehensive or final scheme
for economic salvation. He regards the
Socialist as one who is ignorantly op-
posing a reform that will ultimately
usher in the highest iueal of the Social
ist state. And yet. the single tax is
offered by Henry George as complete
solution of the economic and social prob
lens that now confront us. But our kim
derearten economists will abandon one
defense after another. the while protest.
ing vehementiy that their main defense
is secure. Thus. for instance. while at
one time protesting that all taxes not de-
rived from land can be shifted and are
wicked robbery of labor or capital, at an
other. when shown that the single tax
would not probably raise one-fourth of
the public revenue. they will protest with
consequence. that it is not a question of
economics but of principle. Thus.
again. when shown that the bonanza
farm would drive out the small farmer
as effectually under single tax regime
as under the present one. Mr.. Jose Gras.
prominent single taxer. promptly aban-
dons the single tax position and pro-
poses that the individual control of land
shall be strictly limited in area. SO that
bonanza farms would be an impossible
ity; reactionary scheme quite worthy
the single tax intellect. Thus, again.
while continually insisting that where
land and improvements were about equally
valuable. there a tax on land would not
exceed in amount that not paid on the
land and Improvements. Mr.. Edw. J.
Shriver, leader in the single tax cause.
in the cndeavor to show that single tax
would be sufficient. abandons the argu
ment and now contends that the saving
effected by the non taxation of improve
ments under the single tax would make
the land more valuable, and that the tax
formerly paid on the improvements
would, under the single tax. be added to
the land. thus showing that the total tax
would not diminish; the tax on the i'm
provements being merely shifted on to
the land. And. again, when | exposed
in taking credit for the improved condi-
tion of New Zealand, as a result of the
partial adoption of the single tax, our
friend W. S. G. lau;hingly rings his bell
and assures us with a caper that it don't
matter one way or the other. Lay the
those Mark Tapleys are more cheerful
than ever; they will admit the identity
of the corpse. but insist with triumphant
ecstacy that its "soul is marching on"
There Is something really touching n
this faith in the single tax fetich.
Let me briefly recapituate the argu
ments | have urged against the single tax
theory. not one of which has been an
swered. or even an attempt made at an
answer.
l have shown that the single tax theory
rests on the assumption that all wealth
above bare living to the aborer is abb
sorbed by the private land owner in the
form of rent. and that to restore an
equilibrium of opportunities to all. land
should be made common property by the
confscatiOn OF rent. | have pointed out
that George makes no attempt to prove
the first proposition that he nowhere
quotes statistics showing that the land
owner absorbs all surplus wealth; that,
on the contrary. all facts, statistics, OBJ
servation and common sense totally dis
credited Henry Georges shallow assump-
tiOn. Against the second proposition |
have shown that confscation of rent is
equivalent to the confiscation of the land,
and is so admitted by single takers; that
to cOnfscate from present owners that
''unearned increment or increased value
that has accrued to the land while pass
ing through the hands of various owners,
from it's first purchase from the govern
ment up to preset owners, would be the
most bare-faced and unj jusJifiab BILE robbery.
for which no excuse can be offered. have
also pointed out that it is not private
ownership of occupied land that oppresses
people, but private ownership and mo-
nopoly of all land; that while admitting
that private ownership of land is wrong,
in county like ours of boundless extent
and sparse population, where only 5 per
cent of the land is in use. the mere pri-
vate ownership of occupied land cannot be
the canse of the present inequalities in
wealth; that the present interpolation
of vacant land is due to perve-sion of
our present laws, which demand that al
property shall be assessed at it's .fuir
cash value."'
The result of the enforcement of
this law has been that it has forced the
farmer to purchase land from the monop-
ollzer before he could gain access to the
means of subsistence. 1T has also force
the workman to give up his surplus saw
jngs OF years to the land Spectators be-
fore he could possess a home site, and
now when the speculator has in his DOS
session the farmer and the mechanics
capital, the single takers propose to rob-
the honest farmer and mechanic of their
| land. Was there ever more contempt
ible scheme of robbery proposed? And
remember that the money in the hands
| OF the speculator was untaxed. on the
| theory that capital is good thing" the
| accumulation of which should not be dis
| couraged by being taxed or fined (?)
Enforce existing laws and it would be
| impossible to mon opolize unused land
and it will then be possible for the farm
| er and m eChaniC to gain accesss To Ia nd