The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-03-18
Varied Opinions on Economic Subjects by Earnest
Advocates of Each Theory

WIN are Only partial DcneHCldTleS vi tiic
unearned increment which 1t is deslreu
to confiscate, should be forced to give up,
not merely the accrued value while III
! their possession but, also, the total UNI
earned increment that has accrued dur
ing the possession of al former owners
since the original purchase from the Gov
eminent. Under our land system
farmer, to acquire possession of land nee
essary for his subsistence, has been forced
to invest portion of his capital in land.
In the same way workman may have to
devote years of toll to the payment for
home site. Neither the farmer nor the
workman is robber or monopolizer OF
natural opportunities, so long as there is
sufficient vacant land for the use of 9th
ers. TO confiscate rental values would
rob these men OF the capital Invested in
the farm or home site, as fully as if done
by highwayman, and would be equally
as dishonest and indcfensible.
This scheme of robbery is defended on
the ground that all surplus wealth above
the cost OF the subsistence OF the actual
producer is absorbed by the private land
owner in the shape of rent. That no matter
how fast wealth accumulates, rent swal-
lows up the gain.and more than the gain.
This is baseless assumption which the
statistics of all industrial nations dis
credit. Wealth during the decade ending
1889 accumulated beyond that of any
other period in the worlds history. yet
both continental and American statistics
show that rent and land values have enor-
mouslyH decreased, the decrease in Eng
land being estimated at one billion pounds
sterling, while in our own country the de-
crease in land values, except in few To-
calites, has been enormous. Agricultu-
raj rent in the New England states being
nearly wiped out, while in the middle
states the decrease in land values has
been estimated at 40 per cent.
No prOpOSltlOn more confidently as
sumed by single-taxers than that the CON
fiscation OF economic rent would provide
an ample income for all the purposes of
public revenue. No assumption could be
more falacious. This shallow economic
fallacy is based on the assumption that
present rent is economic rent. whereas on
the contrary present rent is monopoly
rent due to the monopolization of unused
land.
Ricardos Law of Rent, which Henry
George has adopted, and upon which the
single-tax theory is based. may be ex-
pressed by the formula, that "Rent of
land is determined by the excess of it's
produce over that which the same appli-
cation can secure from the least produc
tive land in use" This would be economic
rent. The law is assumed to act under
conditions of absolute freedom. No dis
turbing factor to change or vitiate this
law is contemplated or provided for in
Ricardo's theory. But under present con-
ditions the monOpoliZation of unused land
has introduced factor that enormously
increases rent and vitiates Ricardo's law.
Under conditions of freedom, under
which the law of rent is assumed to oper
ate, rent in this country would be nom
inal Not more than 5 per cent of our
land is in use. Land of the best quality
is not all in use, certainly not in regard to
agricultural land The only land upon
which rent would arise would be the more
faxr. III A1I
cities. But under our system of land
monopolization rent is enormously in
creased. Monopolization of unused land
has the same effect as the reduction of
the area and extent of our territory.
Under present conditions nearly all land
is in the hands of private owners. Pres
ent rent is not therefore, economic rent,
but monopoly rent, due altogether to the
monopolization of unused land. Here is
where the absurdity of the single tax
theory appears. Henry George ignorantly
overlooked the important effect that land
monopolizaton has in increasing rent.
He assumed that present rent was eco
nomic rent There is not a line in Prog
ress and Poverty that would indicate that
he had the slightest conception of the diff
ference; on the contrary, in answering
correspondent in the Standard, he stated
explicitly that present rent was what the
single tax was designed to contscate In
his Letter to the Pope he, for the first
time, shows that he perceives the differ
ence between economic and monopoly
rent.
But the single-tax theory is based on
the assumed sutficiency of single" tax
on land to provide all necessary revenue
for public purposes. 1t is evident, how
ever, and it is continually insisted upon
by single takers, that the adoption of the
single tax would utterly destroy MONOPOLY
of unused land. This is true. Therefore,
under a single-tax regime, all land both
agricultural and urban, not needed for
immediate use, would be abandoned by
the owners from inability to pay the tax.
For it must be remembered that accord
ing to the single-tax theory, all vacant
land is to be assessed exactly the same
as adjacent improved land of equal pro-
ductivity or site value. But, as we have
ninetyfve per cent more land than there
is present use for, rental values would
enormously decrease, to perhaps one tenth
or less, than that obtained under present
conditions. This reduces the single tax
theory to an absurdity, and shows upon
how insecure a foundation Henry George
raised so pretentious Il theory.
AS n mere scheme for raising the largest
possible revenue from land, our present
land system is the best that could be de-
vised. 1t permits the virtual monopoli-
cation OF the entire continent, the pri-
vate owners of which continue to pay
taxes to the community. Much of this
land will not be required for use within
the next century or more. This is why
Assessors undervalue vacant land: they
know that if assessed at its full value, as
the law directs, the owners would be
forced to abandon 1t, and by throwing it
upon the market would enormously re-
duce the taxable value of improved land,
and thereby reduce the revenue for pub
lie purposes.
1t may, therefore, be clearly perceived
that the enforcement of our present land
laws would have the effect of throwing
upon the market millions of acres of the
best agricultural land, which the owners
are now enabled to hold out of use because
it is assessed at from one-fourth to one
tenth of its value. The same holds good
in regard to urban land, fully one-third
of which could not be held out of use if
present laws were enforced. Here is a re-
form that will effect all the good that the
Single Tax will effect, and without anv
contiscation or robbery. For the owners
are aware OF the laws governing land val
uation and could not justly complain of
their enforcement. Until public opinion
is educated up to the justice and necessity
of enforcing certain laws it is idle and
a waste of time to advocate and urge so
drastic measure as the virtual confisca-
ton OF the land as proposed by the Single
Tax theory. w. II. Stuart.
The Rich Man and Lazarus
At the church of the New Era the pas
tor, W. G. Bowman, discoursed to large