^oK
'^o' 1? -^ >AThe
Case
Plainly
Stated
By H:
F.RING
lXj- ^'
PRE"FATORY
NOTE
This address originally was delivered to the United Labor
Organiza-tion of Houston, Texas, in 1887. It appeared in full the next morning
in the Houston Daily Post, and afterwards in The Standard, published
at that time in New York by Henry George. Mr. George then issued
it in tract form, giving it the name of "The Case Plainly Stated."
Many editions of it have since been published from time to time in this
country and in Europe and Australia, and it is generally regarded as
one of the clearest brief statements extant of the philosophy of land value taxation as taught by Henry George in his famous "Progress
and Poverty,"
The
Case
Plainly
Stated.
By H.
F.RING.
MR.
CHAIRMAN
:—
The
land question is simply a question as tohow
the use of the bounties of nature shall be best regulatedand
controlled.By
bounties of nature I
mean
the coal beds, the mineraldeposits, the land
—
all those natural elementswhich
were
not created
by
human
industry, butwhich
Nature
has freelyand
abundantly provided for the useand
enjoy-ment
of all the children ofmen
;and
I propose toshow
how
the right of capital and.labor to use these natural elements should be regulatedby
thegovernment*,
so asmost
toconduce
to the happinessand
well-being ofmankind.
I
am
a Single Taxer,and
a discussion of the land questionby
me
can be nothingmore
than amere
attemptto
expound
the teachings of that greatmaster
of thesubject,
Henry
George.George, at the outset, calls attention to the
marvelous
improvements
in the artsand
sciences, the discoveries, *The word "government" as used in this presentation of the Single Taxrefers to the tax levying power as vested, not alone in the federal, But also
and even primarily in the state, county, and municipal governments.
It is probable that a complete application of the Single Tax will be reached through its gradual adoption at first in cities, counties and states, before it is
substituted for tariffand internal revenue taxation.
2
The
Case
Plainly
Stated.
inventions,
and
labor-savingmachines
which, within the past 100 years,have
soimmensely
increased the pro-ductivepowers
of thehuman
race. Is it not amoderate
estimate to
assume
thaton an
average the labor ofone
man
today, with all these labor-saving inventions, willproduce
asmuch
of the comfortsand
luxuries of lifeas the labors of four
men
would
ahundred
yearsago?
And
does itnot follow that theaverageworkman
of todaycreates,
by
each day's labor, four times asmuch
wealth as the averageworkman
did ahundred
years ago?George
teaches that if the
workman
of today,on an
average, cre-ates four times asmuch
wealth as theworkman
of ahundred
years ago, then the services of thisworkman
of today are four times as valuable to society; thenwhy
should not hiswages
of right be four times as great?Why
shouldhe
not be four times as independent?Why
should it not be four times as easy forhim
tomake
aliving
and
support his family incomfort
and decency?
Will
any
onepresume
to assert that this is in fact the case?On
the contrary, is it not just about ashard
for thepoor
man
tomake
a living today as it everwas
?Does
he
notdread
the loss of a position today just as »much
ashe
ever did?George
asserts that labor-savingmachinery
reallyought
to lessen theburdens
of labor, tomake
it easier for the laborer to live,and
in fact, to lighten his toil.But
alas,from
some
apparentlymys-terious cause,
—
a causewhich
many
comfortablywell-to-do
people insist isone
of theunfathomable
mysteries of Divine Providence,—
what
George
claims should rightly resultfrom
inventions does not resultfrom
them.And
still
we
are all the timemaking
new
discoveries,and
year
by
year increasing,by
means
ofnew
inventions, the productivepowers
ofworking
men;
yet, with the increase of population, the lot of thosewho
produce
allthis wealth
seems
to bebecoming
more
precarious, lessindependent
and
more
and
more
wretched.Who
denies thatunder
the present social system,wages
tend to fall irresistibly to the point atwhich
theiron
law
of wages,and
all the strikes conceivable can only temporarily,and
but fitfully, arrest this steadyten-dency.
For
so long asunemployed
men
compete
forem-ployment
against the employed,wages
cannotpermanent-ly advance.
The
worker
may
create quadruple the wealth, but he is not permitted to retainany
more
of itas his share.
WHO
GETS
THE
WEALTH?
Now,
where
does this wealthgo
—
this wealthwhich
we now
produce
somuch
more
easilyand
in such vastlygreater quantities than ever before?
What
becomes
of it?Who
gets it?Why
is it that in this age ofwealth-pro-ducing
and
labor-saving machinery, poverty as abjectand
hideous as ever before seen in the history of the
world
abounds
and
increases in our midst?What
is the causeof the so-called iron
law
ofwages?
Henry
George
has discovered it.He
has pointed it out,and he
hasshown
us the
remedy.
He
hasdemonstrated
beyond
adoubt
or question that it does not result as a fatal necessityfrom
the nature of things, but that it is a result of violation of natural law, of a refusalon
the part of society to recog-nize the inalienable right of every citizen of access to the bounties of nature within the territory of his countryon
equal terms with every other citizen of that country. Let
me
now
giveyou
a short lesson in the elements ofthis
new
politicaleconomy.
Three
factors enter into the creation of every con-ceivable kind of wealth.By
wealthwe
mean
any
ma-terial thing
produced by
human
industrywhich
gratifieshuman
desires.These
factors are land, laborand
capi-tal.
Wealth
in a civilizedcommunity
isproduced
onlyby
means
of aunion
or partnershipbetween
land, laborand
capital.
Labor
does thework,
capital loans the tools,and
land furnishes the natural elementson
which,and
out of
which
all material things resultingfrom
human
industry are created. In speaking of land in the
new
4
The
Case
Plainly
Stated,
anything
which
is the result ofhuman
toil.We
simply-mean
the opportunitieswhich
landand
the elements within it afford for theemployment
of capitaland
labor—
we
mean
theraw
elements as they lieon
or in thebosom
of the eartli,untouched
by
thehand
ofman.
Now,
as before remarked, the product of land, laborand
capital is wealth,and
after it is produced, it isdi-vided
among
these factors entering into its composition.A
certain portion of it, called rent, goes to land, either directly in theform
of rent or in theform
of intereston
the selling price of the land or of the coal bed, orwhatever
it is; another portion of it, called profit or in-terest, goes to capital for the use of toolswhich
capitalhas furnished,
and
the balance left, after land hasbeen
paid rent
and
capital has been paid interest or profits,goes to labor as
wages
for thework
which
labor has done, including the labor of superintendence.MEANING
OF
RENT.
Now
what
does rent signify as used here?Rent
isthe price paid for the privilege of access to the
raw
ma-terial
—
for themere
privilegeof gettinghold ofsomething
not created
by man,
on which and
out ofwhich
laborand
capital can
produce
wealth. This rentmay
be paid peri-odically, ormay
be paid in alump
in theform
of pur-chasemoney.
In either case the result will be the same.Is it not clear that in the division of wealth after it has
been
produced
by
this partnershipbetween
land, laborand
capital, themore
land gets for rent the less therewill be left for capital
and
labor? Is it not quite as plainas
A
B
C
that themore
it costs capitaland
labor to get hold of these natural elements, the coal beds, the mines, thewater
fronts, the land—
the gifts of naturewhich
a kind providence has provided for the equal useand
en-joyment
of all—
the less there will be for laborand
capi-tal to dividebetween
them?
In the
new
politicaleconomy
we
must
never confuseother.
Land,
as before stated, is simply thenaturaloppor-tunity, exclusive of
improvements
or anythingdone
toit
by man.
Capital issomething
that hasbeen
made
by
man,
like amachine
for instance,which
is useful in the production of wealth. It is wealth used toproduce
more
wealth.
LABOR
AND
CAPITAL PARTNERS.
But someone
asks :Suppose
the capitalistwho
is using the coalbed
or using this natural opportunity,whatever
itmay
be, is alsoowner
of it.Where
then doesyour
partnershipbetween
land, laborand
capitalcome
in?We
answer
just thesame
as before.A
sum
equalto the interest
on
themarket
value of the coalbed
(in-dependent
of the machinery, excavationwork,
etc.) is insuch cases a factor of rent.
The
owner, in addition to profit or intereston
his capital, as before defined,must
also take
from
the wealthproduced
asum
equal, approx-imately, to intereston
themarket
value of the coal land,otherwise
he
would
sell outand
quit. It is evident that themore
money
theowner
is obliged to invest in pur-chasing the coal bed, for instance, the greatermust
be thesum
which
he takes out of the wealthproduced
tocover interest
on
that investment,and hence
such interestmoney
is simply rent paid for the use of a naturalele-ment, for the privilege of access to one of the bounties of nature. Therefore, is it not equally plain in this case that the
more
paid for this privilege of use, the less willremain
out ofwhich
laborcan
getwages?
A
few
yearsago
we
read in thenewspapers
of a greatboom
in the vicinity ofBirmingham,
Alabama.
We
were
exultingly told that the lands containing coalbeds
and
mineral deposits in northernAlabama
had
gone
up
in valuefrom
$75,000 to $50,000,000 in the space ofsix years.
What
does this signify? Itmeans
thatwhen
capital
and
labor shall attempt to utilize these coal beds6
The
Case
Plainly
Stated.
with
which
toproduce
wealth out of thisraw
material,then will a set of landlords step
forward and
block the enterprise with ademand
for $50,000,000 for themere
right of access to these free gifts of nature, or in lieuof it the
payment
of $3,000,000 a year as tributemoney,
that being the interest of $50,000,000 at six per cent.
There
lie the coal bedsand
mineral deposits un-touchedby
man,
freshfrom
thehands
of the Creator,in-tended
by
Him,
ifHe
is the just, benevolentBeing
whom
we
have
been taught toworship, for the equal useand
en-joyment
of allHis
children,and
yet our laws say that capitaland
labormust
pay
afew
forestallers $3,000,000 a year for the privilege of applying thehand
of industryto these elements.
And
after this blackmail has been paid,how
much
will there be left for thewages
of labor?The
answer
is, just as little as labor can ordinarily subsist upon.
Why?
Because
this monopolization of the gifts of nature going on, not only in northernAlabama,
buteverywhere
else, enables capital to drive a
hard
bargain with labor.For
this reason,and
this alone, they can't deal with each otheron
equal vantage grounds.Suppose
labor objectsand
says to capital: *T'll not accept the pittanceyou
offer." Capital replies: "All right,
go
elsewhere."And
so labor starts out to getwork
for himself,and
what
doeshe
find?Here
he
is, living in a country capable ofrais-ing food for ten times its present population,
and he
finds four-fifths of the land untilled or but partiallyculti-vated.
He
finds four-fifths of the coal bedsand
mineral deposits unused.He
finds vacant landand unused
lotson
every side.He
goes toNew
York
City evenand he
finds there within its corporate limits almost one-third the area of that city vacant, unoccupied,
and
unused,al-though
there are milesand
miles oftenement
houses, inwhich
men
and
women
and
innocent children arepacked
and crowded
like maggots, asthough
there wasn'tample
room
in the city for the comfortable housing of everyhuman
being in it.He
findsunused
natural elementsem-ployment
and
support inabundance
to tens of millions ofhappy
families.But
now
suppose labor attempts tomake
use ofany
of these
unused
natural opportunities?Suppose
hecon-cludes to
go
towork
for himselfupon
a piece of vacant land in the suburbs of a city, for instance,where
labor could be applied to the greatest advantage.What
hap-pens?
An
individualcomes
alongand
waves
a titledeed,
and
ordershim
ofif the premises.He
finds that allthese
unused
natural opportunities areowned
by
indi-viduals
and
claimed as private property.He
findshim-self frustrated at every point.
He
finds thathe
can'tgo
towork
anywhere
without paying blackmail to theowner
ofsome
natural element for themere
privilegeof
working and
sohe
strikesback
to northernAlabama
and
takes off his hat to Capitaland
bows
verylow
and
says : 'Tlease, sir, give
me
a bare livingand
I will beyour
slave."And
that is about all thathe
does get,and
that is allhe
ever will getunder
the present system of landowner-ship,
though
you
may
strikeand
boycottand
potter about graduated land taxes, graduatedincome
taxes,and
grad-uated nonsense untildoomsday.
THE GREAT
PARASITE.
With
advancing
population the greaterbecomes
thedemand
for natural opportunitiesand
the higher the priceswhich
can be extorted for the privilege of using them.As
population increases, thetown
lots, the coalbeds, the mineral deposits, the
water
fronts, the land,go
up
in value,and
so goesup
also theamount
of8
The
Case
Plainly
Stated.
Here
inHouston
today, suppose Enterprise has$50,-000 to invest in the paper mill business, a
sum
barelysuf-ficient to put
up
the building,buy
themachinery and
carry stock.
He
finds a beautiful site for his millon
thebanks
of the bayou. It is a vacant lot.The
hand
ofman
has never been applied to it,and
it stands therenow
just as it stoodwhen
the Indianroamed
over the site ofthis city.
The
owner
of that block,however,
thinkshe
can
make
Enterprisepay
him
$20,000 for the privilegeof giving
employment
to laboron
this natural oppor-tunity—
this piece of ground.That
is the price,and
ifhe
can't get it todayhe
will goX itwhen
the citygrows
a little larger.
But
Enterprise says tohim:
*Thave
only $50,000 capital, all of
which
I shallneed
inmy
business."
The
landowner
answers
it is not his lookout,and
so Enterprise turnsaway
checkened
and
baffled,and
the mill is not built.
CAUSE OF
DULL
TIMES.
And
so it is everywhere.Wherever
we
find a portion of the vacant surface of the earthwhich
could be utilizedby
capitaland
labor,and
which
affordsan
opportunityfor
human
toiland
enterprise, therewe
find ahuman
vampire
with a paper title in hishand
warning
off labor ;and
thatvampire
must
always be placatedby
thepay-ment
of blackmail before the wheels of industry can be-gin to turn.Need
we
wonder
that these wheels turn slowly,and
that they are always getting out of gear; that
we
areal-ways
talking about dull times; thatmen
are always out ofemployment
and
always hunting forwork,
regardingit as a favor even to be allowed to
work;
thatwe
areall the time
growing
toomuch
cotton,when
millions ofhuman
beingshave
only one shirt to theirnames;
thatwe
areproducing
toomuch
food,when
half theneeding shoes?
How
could it be otherwise,when
labor is compelled tobeg
forwork
in the midst of limitlessunused
opportunities forwork,
on
which
opportunities,however,
sit thesehuman
vampires, these dogs in themanger,
waving
laborback
with their paper title deeds?AN
ILLUSTRATION.
Now
let usgo back
for amoment
to that partnershipbetween
land, laborand
capital.For
illustration, sup-pose the wealthproduced
by
the partnership to be createdby
the application of capitaland
labor to those coal bedsand
mineral deposits in northernAlabama,
valued, aswe
have
seen, at $50,000,000. In the division of wealthproduced
we
have
shown
how,
say six per cent of this$50,000,000, or $3,000,000,
must
go
to land as rent. Or,in other words, $3,000,000 a year
must
be paid to landowners
directly as rent or intereston purchase
money
for the bare privilege of utilizing these gifts of nature.
Now,
in the division of wealth produced,why
is labor entitled toany
portion of it? Clearly because labor'sindustry has contributed to its creation.
Why
is capital entitled toany
part of it?Because
capital has furnished labor with tools withwhich
to develop the mineralde-posits.
The
capitalistwho
owns
the tools can trace his titleback
to the creator of them, tosome
individual orset of individuals
whose
industryproduced
them
and
from
whom
he purchased
or inherited them.The
title,then, of both labor
and
capital to a portion of the wealthproduced
from
these mineral deposits originates inhu-man
industry,and
it is a sacred title.Now
then,why
should the land
owner
getany
portion of this wealth,to
produce which
capital has supplied the toolsand
labor hasdone
thework
? Thisowner
claims the right of mak-ing capitaland
laborpay
him
intereston
$50,000,000, or $3,000,000 a year, for themere
privilege of access to thisraw
coaland
raw
ore.Ought
we
not to scrutinizemost
carefully his right to extort this
immense
tribute?And
lo
The
Case
Plainly
Stated.
does not society countenance the robbery of labor in per-mitting
him
todo
so?Where
does his title originate?We
find that six or seven years ago he paidsomeone
who
claimed toown
the land inwhich
these mineralde-posits are
found
$750,000 for theraw
natural element forwhich
henow
demands
$50,000,000.Was
this additional value of $49,250,000 in six yearsproduced by
hisin-dustry?
Was
itproduced by
the industry ofany
previ-ous
owner
of these natural elements?Did
it cost$49,-250,000 to discover these mineral deposits?
We
traceback
his title a little further,and
we
find that perhaps ahundred
years ago it originated in a grant toJohn
Jonesfrom
thegovernment
—
that is to say, the peoplewho
in-habited this country a
hundred
yearsago and
who
con-stituted the
government
said :"We
will divide the landand
we
will giveJohn
Jones this particular tract for hisprivate property."
But
did these people create that landand
the coaland
iron in it ?Can
it beshown
that theyhad
any
better right to itfrom
theAlmighty
Creator than the people of this generationhave?
Was
the earth intendedby
the
Heavenly
Father forone
generation to dispose of forever, or asan
abiding place for all generations ?Was
Thomas
Jefferson right orwrong
when
he wrote
:"The
earth belongs in usufruct to the living; thedead have no
right or
power
over it?"By
what
authority could the people living here ahundred
years ago, long sincedead
and
gone, conferupon
John
Jones, alsodead
and
gone, a rightwhich
would
enableJohn Smith
today,by
trac-ing a paper chain of titles
from
him, to extortfrom
capital
and
labor a tribute of $3,000,000 a year for the bare privilege of getting to tliat coaland
ironand
making
it useful to
mankind?
Who
dares toblaspheme
thename
of theAlmighty
Ruler of the universe
by
saying that the coaland
ironwere
not intendedby
Him
for the equal useand
theen-joyment
of allHis
children—
thehumblest
babe born today in a garret equally with a child of the proudestMAN
IS
A
LAND
ANIMAL.
Is not
man
a landanimal?
Can
he
live without land?Can
heany
more
rightfully be deprived of access to land than he can rightfully be deprived of life itself?Can
he
any
more
rightfully be compelled to yieldup
to afore-staller, a
mere
owner
of land, a portion of the fruit ofhis industry for the privilege of getting hold of the
raw
material elements than he can rightfully be compelledas a slave to yield
up
to a master a portion of the fruitsof his industry?
To
compel
him
todo
so is asmuch
a robbery of labor inone
case as in the other.Why
thenis not the
humblest
babe thatGod
sends into thisworld
naturally
and by
inalienable right entitled to access toland
on
equal terms with all his fellowhuman
beings?ORIGIN
OF
PROPERTY
RIGHT.
Mind,
when
we
say access to landwe
do
not include access toimprovements on
land, or access to anythingproduced by
human
industry, a title towhich
can beshown
originating inhuman
toil;we
simplymean
accessupon
equal terms to the free bounties of nature as theylie
upon
the kindbosom
ofmother
earth,untouched and
undisturbed
by
thehand
ofman.
What
Iproduce by
my
industry is mine.What
I obtainby exchanging
the products ofmy
industry for the products of another's industry is mine.What
my
father ormy
grandfatherproduced by
his industrywas
his,and
ifhe
has given it tome
it is mine.In all these cases
human
industry is the origin of property right,and
property rights originating inhuman
industry
must
be held sacred, else therewould
beno
in-centive to
human
effort.Do
not the valuesproduced by
the individual belong to the individual
producing
them?
Do
not the valuesproduced by
thecommunity
belong tothe
community
producing
them?
Is there anythingwrong,
immoral
orcommunistic
in this ideal?And
yet12
The
Case
Plainly
Stated.
Take
the case of the vacant blockon
thebank
of thebayou which
Enterprisewanted
for a paper milland
could not get. Fifty years
ago
itwas
worthless.Now
labormust
pay
a tribute of over $20,000 to the so-calledowner
for the privilege of using it.Whose
industry hasput $20,000 of value
on
that piece of vacantground?
Not
the industry of the present owner, nor the industry ofany former
owner, becauseno
man
has everdone
a stroke ofwork
upon
it.That
value of $20,000 has beenplaced
upon
the landby
thecommon
energyand
enter-prise of the entirecommunity.
Since thecommunity
hasproduced
that land valuewhy
does it not belong to thecommunity?
Why
has not thecommunity
thesame
rights to the value it creates as the individual has to
the values
which he
individually creates?THE
REMEDY.
How
shall thisderangement
of the wheels of industry,this blackmail
upon
enterprise, this robbery of labor, thiseager
and
fatal competitionamong
laborers foremploy-ment, this slavish fear of the loss of a situation in the midst of
abundant
unused
opportunities foremployment
—
how
shall this cursewhich
our present land system has fastenedupon
the productive industry of the country, beremoved?
Simply by
doing justice;by
being honest;by
recognizing in
our
lawsone
of the inalienable rights ofman;
by
recognizing in everyhuman
being, in every generation, the present as well as the past,an
inalienableright of access to the bounties of nature
on
equal terms with every otherhuman
being.How
shall this right of accesson
equal terms bese-cured?
Simply by
making
every individualwho
claims a right to the exclusive possession of a tract of landpay
in the
form
of a tax approximatelywhat
the use of that tract of land is worth, exclusive of allimprovements
on
it or anythingdone
to itby
thehand
ofman, and
WILL
SIMPLIFY
GOVERNMENT.
Some
one
asks: "Will not thisproposed
change
vastly increase the functions ofgovernment
and
im-mensely add
to thenumber
ofgovernment
employees?"
I reply no.
On
the contrary, at least two-thirds of the presentarmy
of revenue collectorsand
tax gathererswill be dispensed with,
and
theremaining
one-third will collect this single taxon
land values at one-third the ex-pensenow
incurred in the collection of national, state,county,
and
municipal taxes.Another
inquirer asks : "Will not thenew
systemoffer
abundant
opportunities for corruptionand
partiality in fixing theamount
of this tax annually to be paid for the exclusive use of a piece of land?And
how
do
you
propose the
amount
of the tax shall bedetermined?"
It will be
determined
by
thesame
law
ofdemand
and
supply
which
now
determines theamount
of taxunder
the present system.
The
single tax will be fixedby
thesame
machinery
ofan
assessorand
aboard
ofequaliza-tion
which
fixes itnow.
For
instance,under
this system a piece of propertyon
Main
street rents for $5,000 a year. Interest at the prevailing rateon
the building alone,added
to the annual cost of insurance, repairsand
care-taking,and
asum
sufficient to provide a sinkingfund
for renewalsamounted
to, say $3,000 a year.The
land-lord is then collecting the differencebetween
$3,000and
$5,000, or $3,000 for the use of this
naked
earth.That
is to say,he
is collecting $2,000 a year for the use ofsomething
never createdby man,
towhich
all areby
natural right equally entitled,
and which owes
its rentalvalue of $2,000 a year exclusively to the
common
enter-priseand
energy of the entirecommunity.
This is the
sum
which,under
Henry
George's system,would
be turned over to thegovernment
in theform
of a tax for thecommon
benefit of thecommunity
who
14
The
Case
Plainly
Stated.
Here
an
interested friend anxiously inquires:"But
'if the landlord has to
pay
this tax of $2,000 a year for theuse of the land, will
he
not take it out of the tenantby
raising his rent to $7,000?"
No,
for the landlord's chargesnow
allhe
cancompel
the tenant to pay.Sup-pose
he
tries to.Suppose he
says to his tenant:"You
must
now
pay
me
$7,000 a year."What
happens
? Justwhat
happens
everyday now.
If the tenantcan
do no
better
he
pays the increase.But
now,
mark
you,when
the landlordgoes to
pay
his taxwhat
happens
then?Why
the
board
of equalization says to him,you
have
received $7,000 a year rent for the use ofimprovements
worth
only $3,000 a year.
You
are therefore collecting $4,000 a year instead of $2,000 for the use of thenaked
lot,and
you
will thereforepay
the city or state $4,000 a year for the privilege of the exclusive use of theground
instead of $2,000 a year as heretofore.Now
what
has the land-lordmade
by
jumping up
the rent? Nothing.What
would
bemade
by
thusjumping
up
the rentsunder
the presentsystem?
Everything.Under
which
systemwould
landlords bemore
apt to forceup
rents?DETERMINING
THE
TAX.
Another
way
by
which
theboard
of equalizationunder
theGeorge
systemwould
determine theamount
of tax to be paid for the privilege of the exclusive posses-sion of a tract of land,and which
would
alsocompel
landlords to collect
from
their tenantsand
turn overto the
government
in theform
of a tax the fullvalue of the use of the land,
would
befrom
observation of the priceswhich
real estatebrought
in the market.But
note, at this pointsome
smart fellowjumps
up
—
and
he
is likelyenough
to be anewspaper
editor—
and
vehe-mently
protests, saying:"Why,
sir, the taxation ofground
values plan does not propose to allowany
ex-clusive
ownership
of land. Itdemands
that thegovern-ment
own
it alland
rent it out or divide itup
intokind with it,
and
hereyou
are talking about lands beingbought
and
soldunder
theHenry
George
system.Why,
man
alive,you
don'tknow
what
that system is !"Now,
Mr.
Editor, orMr.
Who-ever-you-are,
letme
say toyou
that inyour
ignorance, or inyour
indifferenceto the sufferings of
your
fellowmen, or inyour
desireto
pander
to the greed ofmonopoly,
or to the timidity of capital,you
may
saywhat you
please;you
may
mis-represent asmuch
asyou
please for thepurpose
of bringingodium
and contempt
upon
the cause;you
may
call it
what you
please—
state ownership, state landlord-ism,ownership
incommon,
communism,
nihilism,anarch-ism
or anything else; but the fact, nevertheless,remains
that,
under
the justand
righteous land systemwhich
we
are trying to explain, the land will continue to bebought and
soldunder
thesame
form
of paper deeds, precisely as it isbought
and
sold today. It will con-tinue in preciselythesame
way
to pass to deviseesby
willand
to heirsby law
of descentand
distribution.The
right of control, of exclusive possessionand
dominion
over a piece of land
and
of the freeand
exclusiveen-joyment
of allimprovements on
it, w411 inno
way
be abridged or disturbed.When
you buy
a loton
Main
street today
worth
$10,000 with a buildingon
itworth
$10,000 more,
your
deed
recites a consideration of $20,000.Now
when
you
buy
thissame
propertyunder
the
George
system, the only difference in thewhole
transaction will be that
your deed
for it—
assuming
that the price accords with themarket
value prevailing at the time ofyour
purchase—
will recite a consideration of only $10,000,and
$10,000 is all thatyou
will thenpay
for the property.You
willpay
nothing for the land.After
you
have bought
the propertyyou
willpay
yearly inthe
form
of a tax to thegovernment,
approximately thefull
market
value of the (yearly) use of it—
which
willamount
to the annual rental value of the land,and
as theman
from
whom
you purchased had
topay
the1
6
The
Case
Plainly
Stated,
pay
nothing, or approximately nothing''', tohim
for the land itselfwhen
you
purchase the property.You
thus savean
investment of $10,000 in dirt; instead of suchin-vestment
you
willpay
for thecommon
benefit of thecommunity,
including yourself,what
the privilege of the exclusive use of that spot of earth isworth
—
nothing more, nothing less—
and
that is simplywhat you
ought
to pay.
The
$10,000, which,under
the present system,you
are compelled tobury
in a bit of earth,you
willhave
leftyou
withwhich
to increaseyour
business;and
if
you
do
increaseyour
business with it,and add
anotherstory to
your
building,no
tax gatherer willcome
around
and impose an
additional fineupon you
for doingsome-tliing with
your
money
which
givesemployment
to labor.NO
PROPERTY
IN
LAND.
Thus,
under
the single tax system^ landwould
be soldand would
change
hands
as it doesnow,
but itwould
only bring in the
market
approximately the value of theimprovements
on
it. If land inany
locality should getto selling for considerably
more
than the value of theimprovements on
it, thiswould
be a certain indication that the parties using the natural elements in thatneigh-borhood
were
not paying for the benefit of all the peoplewhat
the use of thesame was
worth,and
so aboard
of equalizationwould
put the tax up.As
populationin-creases the value of the use of land increases,
and
withit,
under
theGeorge
system, the revenuefrom
this taxon
land values will increase,and
thus the entire peoplewho
collectivelyproduce
this increasing value will get the benefit of the values collectivelyproduced
by
them.As
it isnow,
the increase in the value of land,which
amounts
to several billions annually in theUnited
States, four-fifths ofwhich
is increase in the value of cityand
*There will, no doubt, be instances where the desire of an individual to
town
lotsand
mineral deposits, goes to a comparatively smallnumber
of individualswho
do no
more
toproduce
these values than
any
othermembers
of thecommunity.
TAXATION
ABOLISHED.
Another
doubter puts this objection:Under
theGeorge
systemyou would
make
theowner
of a loton
Main
street, withan
improvement
on
itworth
$10,000,pay
asmuch
tax as theowner
of a similar lot adjoining,having
a buildingon
itworth
$50,000.What
justice isthere in that?
Let
us see.Take
away
theimprovements and
thesetwo
lots are of thesame
value—
that is to say, the value of the use of both lots for ordinary business purposes isthe same.
Suppose
it is$300
a year.Now,
theman
with the $50,000improvement
collectsfrom
his tenant ten per centon
his $50,000, or $5,000.He
also collects $300, the value of the use of the lot,making
in all $5,300.The
man
with the $10,000improvement
also collects ten per centupon
the valuation of hisimprovement from
his tenant, of $1,000.He,
too, collects$300
in addition for the use of the lot,making
in all $1,300.Now
after bothhave
paid thegovernment $300
apiece for theprivi-lege of the exclusive use of these lots, each will
have
left ten per cent
upon
the capital invested,and
why
should
one
be entitled toany
greater per centupon
thecapital invested than the other?
The
fact is, thatunder
this system there will beno
such thing as taxes. Taxation, as
we now
understand
it, will be abolished.The
revenue
derivedby
thegovern-ment from
requiring allwho
use a natural opportunityto
pay
into thecommon
treasurywhat
the use of thatop-portunity is worth, if it is
worth
anything at all, will bemore
than sufficient to enable thegovernment
to dispense with every species of taxation.As
it isnow,
when
you
pay your
taxes,you
are simplyrobbed
of a portion of the1
8
The
Case
Plainly
Stated,
when
you
pay your
single taxon
land valuesyou
willget directly a full equivalent for every dollar paid.
You
will get the privilege of the exclusive use of a tract of land forwhat
that privilege is worth,ACCESS
TO
UNUSED
LAND.
If this system
were
adoptedwhat
would become
of the vacant lotsand
lands, theunused
coal bedsand
mineral deposits, the
unoccupied water
frontsand water
privileges over
which
human
vampires
now
stand guard, retarding enterpriseand
driving off labor?They
would
become
absolutely free.No
one
could afford to holdthem
and pay
taxeson
them.The
vampires
would
turnthem
loose.Land
speculatorsand
land sharks, instead of trying togrow
richby
forestalling laborand
capitaland
thus preying like devouring beastson
theirfellow-men,
would
turn their talents to better account. Wher-ever labor could findan unused
lot or coalbed
or mineral deposit orunused
tract of land, there labor couldgo
towork
and employ
itself without being required to invest a dollar in the purchase of a right of access to thena-tural element, without being compelled to first
make
terms with adog
in themanger
claiming it as private propertyand
holding it for speculative purposes.If that vacant natural opportunity
were
situated near a center of population, orwere
of a character tobestow
peculiar
money-making
advantagesupon
the persons using it, this advantagewould
create ademand
for it,and
thisdemand
would
regulate in themanner
already pointed out theamount
which
laborand
capitalwould
pay
for the ttse of it, in theform
of a tax for thecon-mon
benefit of all. If that vacant opportunity, forin-instance,
were
a tract of land four or five milesfrom
this city, it
would
have
few
advantages tomake
the use of it at present peculiarly valuable.Why
?Because
there is so
much
vacant land of thesame
character nearit, the use of
which
is equally valuable, thatno one
par-ticular tract.
Labor
would, therefore, at first get the use of that land for nothing. Itwould
have
no
taxable value at all until all the other vacant land similarlysitu-ated
was
put into use.Under
thismost
justand
equit-able system the taxable values of land
would
be confined almost exclusively to the citiesand towns and
the coaland
mineral deposits.Where
people congregate, there land has value. InNew
York
City alone, capitaland
labor today
pay
to afew
thousand
land owners, inground
rent alone, exclusive of rent paid
on improvements,
for the bare privilege of livingand
doing business, tributemoney
amounting
tohundreds
of millions annually, asum
almost equal to theexpense
of carryingon
thegovernment
of theUnited
States. It is in these great centers of tradeand
commerce
that land has its greatest value; it is here that land values are mostlyfound and
from
these centers nine-tenths of the revenue of thegov-ernment
from
this taxon
land valueswould
be derived.FARMERS
WOULD
BE
BENEFITED.
If the
George
planwere
suddenly put in force today, not onlywould
all farmers be relievedfrom
directand
indirect taxation, not only
would
farmers participate incommon
with all others in the universaland
uninter-rupted prosperity
which
would
resultfrom
removing
the obstructionswhich
needlesslyhamper
and
clogenter-prise, but probably three-fourths of the
working
farmersin this country
would
pay no
land tax at all.Why?
Be-cause with so
much
vacant or but partially cultivated land as there is here today three-fourths of the farmerswould
have
no
taxable value at all;and
allwho
are countingon
the farmers ofAmerica
being so foolish asnot to see
how
they will be asmuch
benefitedby
a just20
The
Case
Plainly
Stated.
EFFECT
ON
FARMS.
"Yes," says our
farmer
friend, "butyou
propose to confiscate the farmer's land." Let's see about that.You
are a
farmer
owning
say a hundred-acre farm, situatedHke
a majority of farms, in aneighborhood
where
for every acre of land in cultivation there aretwo
ormore
acresunimproved
or but partially improved.Your
farm
is
worth under
the present system, say $2,000.A
hun-dred acres of this
unimproved
land adjoining it of thesame
quality is heldby
some
speculator at $500.Your
taxon your
hundred-acrefarm
is $10 a year, thespecula-tor's tax
on
thehundred
acres of land adjoining of equalvalue, exclusive of
improvements,
is $2.50 a year—
one-fourth asmuch
as yours.You
giveemployment
tola-bor
on your
land,and
therebyadd
to the prosperity of thecommunity.
The
speculator excludes laborfrom
employment
on
his land,and
thereby retards the pros-perity of thecommunity.
Why
shouldyou
be taxedany
more
for usingyour
hundred-acre tract,and
givingem-ployment
to laboron
it, than the speculator is taxed for holding in idleness a tract of equal valueand
preventing laborfrom
using it?Why
should not the speculatorpay
at least asmuch
tax for the privilege of excluding laborfrom
his tract asyou
have
topay
for the privilege ofemploying
laboron yours?
Have
you
hurtanyone by
turning
up
the wild sodand
building fencesand
housesand
putting $1,500worth
ofimprovements on your
land?If not,
why
shouldyou
be fined for itby having your
taxes increased?
Where
our plan is adoptedyou
willhave
no
taxesat all to
pay
until this vacant landaround your
farm
isput into use. Until then
no
land value could attach toyour
farm,and
the tax which, with increasing population,you would
ultimately be required to pay,would
seldom
equal
and
rarely, if ever, exceed thatwhich
farmersnow
which
themerchants
take for collectmg indirect taxes,amount
to at least$100
a year.You may
notknow
it,because
an
indirect taxalways
fools a fellow paying it.You
will be relievedfrom
all these taxes, but best of all,men
who
arenow
idleand
who
can'tbuy what you
raise will all be atwork,
and
not only that, but theirwages
will be high
enough
topay good
prices forwhat you
raise. It is true thatunder
thenew
systemyou
could only sellyour
place for $1,500. Still, with thissame
$1,500you
couldbuy
just asgood
a placefrom some
one
else.The
purchasingpower
ofyour
farm,when
itcomes
tobuying
another farm,would
nothave been
reduced.Do
notyour
interests asproducer
or a laborer vastly exceedyour
interests as a landowner?
LANDLORDISM
AND GOVERNMENT
Now,
coming
back
to the elements of thenew
politicaleconomy,
some
one says:"What
difference does itmake
to the
workmen
whether
laborand
capitalpay
thisground
rent to the individual or to thegovernment,
since,according to
your
theory, itmust
be paid all thesame?"
In the first place, if it is paid to the individual
none
ofit ever
comes
back
to laborand
capital unless valuere-ceived is paid for it; so far as labor
and
capital are concerned, itmight
about as well be cast into the sea.But
when
it is paid to thegovernment
in theform
of a taxon
land values it doescome
back
to laborand
capitalagain in the
form
of relieffrom
every species oftaxa-tion, direct
and
indirect.Again, the
amount
that Enterprisewould
pay
thegovernment
for the privilege of access to the naturalele-ments
would
be lessunder
the single tax than isnow
paid individuals for this privilege.
Under
the land value tax the prices could not beadvanced by
monopolization of these elements, as is beingdone now.
But
best of all,and by
far themost
glorious resultthat will flow
from
the establishment of a justand
22
The
Case
Plainly
Stated.
creator to stand erect, presenting to capital
an
unterri-iied front.
Return
for amoment
to the coal beds of northernAlabama
and
imagine theHenry
George
system adopted.Labor
now
again objects to the terms offeredby
capital,and
again capital tellshim
to go.And
again labor goes forth hunting forwork.
But
how
differenthe
finds the aspect of things.He
finds thesame
unused
naturalele-ments, the
same
unused
coal bedsand
mineral deposits,the vacant lots
and
lands, buthe
no
longer finds afellow-man
sittingupon
every vacant opportunity forwork
and
waving
him
off.They
have
vanished.They
have gone
to
work
themselves.He
finds everyunused
opportunity for labor,wherever
itmay
be, absolutely free.Not
adollar of capital
need
be invested inbuying
a natural opportunity, in paying for the privilege ofwork.
When
labor
went
forth huntingwork
before,he
not onlyhad
lo ask capital to
pay
for the tools, but also to pay,usu-ally a greater
sum,
tosome
forestaller, in addition, as blackmail, for the privilege of access to a naturalele-ment.
This will all be changed. It won't take near as
much
capital to start enterprises as it did, or in other words,to give
employment
to labor. In fact, labor could then take evenan
axe
and hoe and
find plenty of vacant op-portunitieson
which
he couldmake
a living withouthaving
tobury
himself in a wilderness todo
it. All thismakes him
feel independentand
enableshim
to bargain with capital foremployment
on
equal vantage grounds.MONOPOLY
IS
PROFITABLE.
Some
time since a largemanufacturing
firm inMas-sachusetts adopted the eight-hour system.
After
tryingit a year they
gave
itup
and
went
back
to the ten-hour system.The
generalmanager
said they could onlymake
five per cent profit
on
their investmentsby
requiring only eight hours'work,
and
that unless they couldmake
with the
management
of the business—
theywould
puttheir
money
intotown
and
city lots, because that speciesof property
would
certainlyenhance
in value asmuch
asfive per cent annually,
and
that, too, withoutany
troubleto the owner,
and
so it is everywhere.Now,
is it notabsurd to expect to reduce the rate of profits with
which
capital will be content
below
this steady per cent ofin-crease in the value of
town
and
city lots,by any
com-bination of labor, or
by
any
legislationwhich
falls short of restoring these land values to the people v/hocol-lectively create
them?
Suppose
you
have
$10,000 today.The
bestand
safest thing
you
cando
with it is to invest it intown
lotsin or near
some
growing
town.Ten
yearsfrom
today, unless theGeorge
theorybecomes
generally understood, the lots will beworth
$20,000and
you
willhave
drawn
to yourself $10,000
worth
of wealth forwhich
you
have
given
no
equivalent.You
will simplyhave robbed
the labor of the country of $10,000.But
now
supposeground
values to be appropriated to the public useby
taxation.What
areyou
todo
withyour
$10,000?You
would
notbuy
vacant lotsnow
; there isno
specula-tion in them.
The
taxwhich
you
would
have
topay
for the privilege of excluding capitaland
laborfrom
the opportunities foremployment which
vacant lots afford,would
be tooheavy
for you. In fact,you
couldn't even loanon
land alone, because land alone willhave
no
sell-ing value in the market.
The
result is, that unlessyou
let
your
money
lie idleand
so lose intereston
it,you
willbe compelled to invest it so as to give
employment
to labor.You
must
put it into buildings, into machinery,into
manufactory
stock, intofarm
implements, intosome
channel
where
it will be activeand
where
it will affordemployment
to labor.Not
onlymust you
do
this withyour
capital, but every other capitalistmust
do
thesame
with his capital.Capitalist thus
must
bid against capitalist, since capitalcan only increase
by
calling labor to its aidand
giving24
The
Case
Plainly
Stated.
Under
the present system the rich cangrow
richer withoutcalling in the aid of labor, without givingemploy-ment
to labor.They
do
soby buying
spaceand
monop-olizing land.
Under
the present system, as wealth accumulates, the wealthy seek to invest in land, to get control of natural elements,and
get into a positionfrom
which
to black-mail labor, thusbecoming an
obstacle in theway
of the production ofmore
wealth.Under
the better system,however,
wealth could not thus bemade
to setup
an
obstacle to the creationofmore
wealth, or, in other words, to theemployment
of labor.It
can
then only obtain a profitby
investing in lines of enterprisewhich
giveemployment
to labor.Under
which
system will thedemand
for labor be greater?Under
which
will earnings be higher?<^'WciNH^>"
I
j.°-^^ 4 ^°-'^,
: