The squalid poverty that festers in the heart of our civilization,
the vice and crime and degradation and ravening greed that flow from
it, are the results of a treatment of land that ignores the simple
law of justice, a law so clear and plain that it is universally
recognized by the veriest savages. What is by nature the common
birthright of all, we have made the exclusive property of
individuals; what is by natural law the common fund, from which
common wants should be met, we give to a few that they may lord it
over their fellows. And so some are gorged while some go hungry, and
more is wasted than would suffice to keep all in luxury.
In this nineteenth century, among any people who have begun to
utilize the forces and methods of modern production, there is no
necessity for want. There is no good reason why even the poorest
should not have all the comforts, all the luxuries, all the
opportunities for culture, all the gratifications of refined taste
that only the richest now enjoy. There is no reason why any one
should be compelled to long and monotonous labor. Did invention and
discovery stop to day, the forces of production are ample for this.
What hampers production is the unnatural inequality in distribution.
And, with just distribution, invention and discovery would only have
begun.
Appropriate rent in the way I
propose, and speculative rent would
be at once destroyed. The dogs in the manger who are now holding so
much land they have no use for, in order to extract a high price from
those who do want to use it, would be at once choked off, and land
from which labor and capital are now debarred under penalty of a
heavy fine would be thrown open to improvement and use. The
incentive
to land monopoly would be gone. Population would spread where it is
now too dense, and become denser where it is now too sparse.
... read the whole article
Henry George: The Common Sense of Taxation (1881
article)
To illustrate: A man builds a fine house or large factory in a poorly improved
neighborhood. To tax this building and its adjuncts is to make him pay for
his enterprise and expenditure — to take from him part of his natural
reward. But the improvement thus made has given new beauty or life to the
neighborhood, making it a more desirable place than before for the erection
of other houses or factories, and additional value is given to land all about.
Now to tax improvements is not only to deprive of his proper reward the man
who has made the improvement, but it is to deter others from making similar
improvements. But, instead of taxing improvements, to tax these land values
is to leave the natural inducement to further improvement in full force,
and at the same time to keep down an obstacle to further improvement, which,
under the present system, improvement itself tends to raise. For the advance
of land values which follows improvement, and even the expectation of improvement,
makes further improvement more costly.
See how unjust and short-sighted is this system. Here is a man who, gathering
what little capital he can, and taking his family, starts West to find a
place where he can make himself a home. He must travel long distances; for,
though he will pass plenty of land nobody is using, it is held at prices
too high for him. Finally he will go no further, and selects a place where,
since the creation of the world, the soil, so far as we know, has never felt
a plowshare. But here, too, in nine cases out of ten, he will find the speculator
has been ahead of him, for the speculator moves quicker, and has superior
means of information to the emigrant. Before he can put this land to the
use for which nature intended it, and to which it is for the general good
that it should be put, he must make terms with some man who in all probability
never saw the land, and never dreamed of using it, and who, it may be, resides
in some city, thousands of miles away. In order to get permission to use
this land, he must give up a large part of the little capital which is seed-wheat
to him, and perhaps in addition mortgage his future labor for years. Still
he goes to work: he works himself, and his wife works, and his children work — work
like horses, and live in the hardest and dreariest manner. Such a man deserves
encouragement, not discouragement; but on him taxation falls with peculiar
severity. Almost everything that he has to buy — groceries, clothing,
tools — is largely raised in price by a system of tariff taxation which
cannot add to the price of the grain or hogs or cattle that he has to sell.
And when the assessor comes around he is taxed on the improvements he has
made, although these improvements have added not only to the value of surrounding
land, but even to the value of land in distant commercial centers. Not merely
this, but, as a general rule, his land, irrespective of the improvements,
will be assessed at a higher rate than unimproved land around it, on the
ground that "productive property" ought to pay more than "unproductive
property" — a principle just the reverse of the correct one, for
the man who makes land productive adds to the general prosperity, while the
man who keeps land unproductive stands in the way of the general prosperity,
is but a dog-in-the-manger, who prevents others from using what he will not
use himself.
Or, take the case of the railroads. That railroads are a public benefit
no one will dispute. We want more railroads, and want them to reduce their
fares and freight. Why then should we tax them? for taxes upon railroads
deter from railroad building, and compel higher charges. Instead of taxing
the railroads, is it not clear that we should rather tax the increased value
which they give to land? To tax railroads is to check railroad building,
to reduce profits, and compel higher rates; to tax the value they give to
land is to increase railroad business and permit lower rates. The elevated
railroads, for instance, have opened to the overcrowded population of New
York the wide, vacant spaces of the upper part of the island. But this great
public benefit is neutralized by the rise in land values. Because these vacant
lots can be reached more cheaply and quickly, their owners demand more for
them, and so the public gain in one way is offset in another, while the roads
lose the business they would get were not building checked by the high prices
demanded for lots. The increase of land values, which the elevated roads
have caused, is not merely no advantage to them — it is an injury;
and it is clearly a public injury. The elevated railroads ought not to be
taxed. The more profit they make, with the better conscience can they be
asked to still further reduce fares. It is the increased land values which
they have created that ought to be taxed, for taxing them will give the public
the full benefit of cheap fares.
So with railroads everywhere. And so not alone with railroads, but with
all industrial enterprises. So long as we consider that community most prosperous
which increases most rapidly in wealth, so long is it the height of absurdity
for us to tax wealth in any of its beneficial forms. We should tax what we
want to repress, not what we want to encourage. We should tax that which
results from the general prosperity, not that which conduces to it. It is
the increase of population, the extension of cultivation, the manufacture
of goods, the building of houses and ships and railroads, the accumulation
of capital, and the growth of commerce that add to the value of land — not
the increase in the value of land that induces the increase of population
and increase of wealth. It is not that the land of Manhattan Island is now
worth hundreds of millions where, in the time of the early Dutch settlers,
it was only worth dollars, that there are on it now so many more people,
and so much more wealth. It is because of the increase of population and
the increase of wealth that the value of the land has so much increased.
Increase of land values tends of itself to repel population and prevent improvement.
And thus the taxation of land values, unlike taxation of other property,
does not tend to prevent the increase of wealth, but rather to stimulate
it. It is the taking of the golden egg, not the choking of the goose that
lays it.
Every consideration of policy and ethics squares with this conclusion. The
tax upon land values is the most economically perfect of all taxes. It does
not raise prices; it maybe collected at least cost, and with the utmost ease
and certainty; it leaves in full strength all the springs of production;
and, above all, it consorts with the truest equality and the highest justice.
For, to take for the common purposes of the community that value which results
from the growth of the community, and to free industry and enterprise and
thrift from burden and restraint, is to leave to each that which he fairly
earns, and to assert the first and most comprehensive of equal rights — the
equal right of all to the land on which, and from which, all must live.
Thus it is that the scheme of taxation which conduces to the greatest production
is also that which conduces to the fairest distribution, and that in the
proper adjustment of taxation lies not merely the possibility of enormously
increasing the general wealth, but the solution of these pressing social
and political problems which spring from unnatural inequality in the distribution
of wealth. ... read the whole article
Henry George: Why The Landowner
Cannot Shift The Tax on Land Values (1887)
But while the Taxation of Land Values cannot raise rents, it would,
especially in a country like this, where there is so much valuable land
unused, tend strongly to lower them. In all our cities, and through all
the country, there is much land which is not used, or not put to its
best use, because it is held at high prices by men who do not want to,
or who cannot, use it themselves, but who are holding it in expectation
of profiting by the increased value which the growth of population will
give to it in the future. Now the effect of the Taxation of Land Values
would be to compel these men to seek tenants or purchasers. Land upon
which there is no taxation even a poor man can easily hold for higher
prices, for land eats nothing. But put heavy taxation upon it, and even
a rich man will be driven to seek purchasers or tenants, and to get
them he will have to put down the price he asks, instead of putting it
up; for it is by asking less, not by asking more, that those who have
anything they are forced to dispose of must seek customers. Rather than
continue to pay heavy taxes upon land yielding him nothing, and from
the future increase in value of which he could have no expectation of
profit, since increase in value would mean increased taxes, he would be
glad to give it away or let it revert to the State. Thus the dogs in the manger, who all over
the country are withholding land that they cannot use themselves from
men who would be glad to use it, would be forced to let go their grasp.
To tax Land Values up to anything like their full amount would
be to utterly destroy speculative values, and to diminish all rents
into which this speculative element enters. And how groundless it is to
think that landlords who have tenants could shift a tax on Land Values
upon their tenants can be readily seen from the effect upon landlords
who have no tenants. It is when tenants seek for land, not when
landlords seek for tenants, that rent goes up.
... read the whole article
Henry George: The Crime
of Poverty (1885 speech)
Now go into the cities and what
do you see! Why, you see even a lower
depth of poverty; aye, if I would point out the worst of the evils of
land monopoly I would not take you to Connemara; I would not take you
to Skye or Kintire — I would take you to Dublin or Glasgow or London.
There is something worse than physical deprivation, something worse
than starvation; and that is the degradation of the mind, the death of
the soul. That is what you will find in those cities.
Now, what is the cause of that? Why, it is plainly to be seen;
the
people driven off the land in the country are driven into the slums of
the cities. For every man that is driven off the land the demand for
the produce of the workmen of the cities is lessened; and the man
himself with his wife and children, is forced among those workmen to
compete upon any terms for a bare living and force wages down. Get work
he must or starve — get work he must or do that which those people, so
long as they maintain their manly feelings, dread more than death, go
to the alms-houses. That is the reason, here as in Great Britain, that
the cities are overcrowded. Open the
land that is locked up, that is
held by dogs in the manger, who will not use it themselves and will not
allow anybody else to use it, and you would see no more of tramps and
hear no more of over-production. ...
What is the reason for this
overcrowding of cities? There is
no natural reason. Take New York, one half its area is not built
upon. Why, then, must people crowd together as they do there? Simply
because of private ownership of land. There is plenty of room to
build houses and plenty, of people who want to build houses, but
before anybody can build a house a blackmail price must be paid to
some dog in the manger. It costs in many cases more to get vacant
ground upon which to build a house than it does to build the house.
And then what happens to the man who pays this blackmail and builds a
house? Down comes the tax-gatherer and fines him for building the
house.
It is so all over the United
States — the men who improve,
the men who turn the prairie into farms and the desert into gardens,
the men who beautify your cities, are taxed and fined for having done
these things. Now, nothing is clearer than that the people of New
York want more houses; and I think that even here in Burlington you
could get along with more houses. Why, then, should you fine a man
who builds one? Look all over this country — the bulk of the
taxation rests upon the improver; the man who puts up a building, or
establishes a factory, or cultivates a farm he is taxed for it; and
not merely taxed for it, but I think in nine cases out of ten the
land which he uses, the bare land, is taxed more than the adjoining
lot or the adjoining 160
acres that some speculator is holding as a
mere dog in the manger, not using it himself and not allowing anybody
else to use it. ... read the whole speech
Henry George: The
Great Debate: Single Tax vs Social Democracy (1889)
With
taxes on land values, with taxes on economic rent from land, whether
it was vacant land or the site of a factory, or pleasure ground or
farm, would compel all over this country the “dogs in the
manger” to let go their grasp. (Hear, hear and cheers.) It would
give opportunities by which labour could employ itself. ... Read the entire article
Henry George: Thou Shalt Not Steal
(1887 speech)
What we propose to do is to
divide up the rent that comes from land; and that is a very easy thing.
We need not disturb anybody in possession, we need not interfere
with anybody’s building or anybody’s improvement. We only need to remit taxes on all
improvements, on all forms of wealth, and put the tax on the value of
the land, exclusive of the improvements, so that the dog-in-the-manger who is holding a
piece of vacant land will have to pay the same amount of tax for it as
land of similar value with a building or other improvements upon it. In
that way we would treat the whole land of such a community as being the
common estate of the whole people of the community. ...
A few weeks ago when I was traveling in Illinois a young fellow
got into the car at one of the mining towns. Entering into conversation
with him, he said he was going to another place to try to get work. He
told me of the condition of the miners, that they could scarcely make a
living, getting very small wages, and only working about half the time.
I said to him: "There is plenty of coal in the ground; why don’t you
employ yourselves in digging coal?" He replied: "We did get up a
co-operative company, and we went to see the owner of the land to ask
what he would take to let us sink a shaft and get out some coal. He
wanted $7,500 a year. We could not raise that much." Tax land up to its full value, and how long
can such dogs-in-the-manger afford to hold that coal land away from
these men? And when people who want work can go and employ
themselves, then there will be no million or no thousand unemployed
people in all the United States. ... read
the whole article
Louis Post: Outlines of Louis F. Post's
Lectures, with Illustrative Notes and Charts (1894) — Appendix:
FAQ
Q51. Yes; but when the home place is parted with now, the home owner
is compensated by the high price he gets.
A. Then your question does not turn upon the home sentiment but upon the dollar
sentiment. As a matter of sentiment, the condition would be no worse in any case
than now, and in many cases far better; as a matter of dollars, the question
is one of justice and not of the home. Under the single tax any one who wanted
a home could have it, and never be obliged to abandon one home for another, unless
such changes took place in the neighborhood as to make the place inappropriate
for a home. He could not then, as he does now, play dog in the manger, saying
to the community, "I will not use this place for appropriate purposes, nor
will I allow any one else to do so."
... read the book
Winston Churchill: The
People's Land
Tax
on capital value of undeveloped land But there is another
proposal concerning land values which is not less
important. I mean the tax on the capital value of undeveloped urban or
suburban land. The income derived from land and its rateable value
under the present law depend upon the use to which the land is put,
consequently income and rateable value are not always true or complete
measures of the value of the land. Take the case to which I have
already referred of the man who keeps a large plot in or near a growing
town idle for years while it is ripening -- that is to say, while it is
rising in price through the exertions of the surrounding community and
the need of that community for more room to live. Take that case. I
daresay you have formed your own opinion upon it. Mr Balfour, Lord
Lansdowne, and the Conservative Party generally, think that is an
admirable arrangement. They speak of the profits of the land monopolist
as if they were the fruits of thrift and industry and a pleasing
example for the poorer classes to imitate. We do not take that view of
the process. We think it is a dog-in-the-manger
game. We see the evil, we see the imposture upon the public, and we see
the consequences in crowded slums, in hampered commerce, in distorted
or restricted development, and in congested centres of population, and
we say here and now to the land monopolist who is holding up his land
-- and the pity is it was not said before -- you shall judge for
yourselves whether it is a fair offer or not. We say to the land monopolist: 'This
property of yours might be put to immediate use with general advantage.
It is at this minute saleable in the market at ten times the value at
which it is rated. If you choose to keep it idle in the expectation of
still further unearned increment, then at least you shall he taxed at
the true selling value in the meanwhile.' And the Budget
proposes a tax of a halfpenny in the pound on the capital value of all
such land; that is to say, a tax which is a little less in equivalent
than the income tax would be upon the property if the property were
fully developed. That is the second main proposal of the Budget with
regard to the land, and its effects will be,
- first, to raise an expanding revenue for the needs of the
State;
- secondly, half the proceeds of this tax, as well as of the
other
land taxes, will go to the municipalities and local authorities
generally to relieve rates;
- thirdly, the effect
will be, as we believe, to bring land into the market, and thus
somewhat cheapen the price at which land is obtainable for every
object, public and private, and by so doing we shall liberate new
springs of enterprise and industry, we shall stimulate building,
relieve overcrowding, and promote employment. .... Read the whole piece
|
To
share this page with a friend: right click, choose "send," and
add your comments.
|
|
Red
links have not been visited; .
Green
links are pages you've seen |
Essential Documents
pertinent to this theme:
|
|