1
2
3
Wealth and Want | |||||||
... because democracy alone is not enough to produce widely shared prosperity. | |||||||
Home | Essential Documents | Themes | All Documents | Authors | Glossary | Links | Contact Us |
Special
Interests
H.G. Brown: Significant Paragraphs from Henry George's Progress & Poverty, Chapter 5: The Basic Cause of Poverty (in the unabridged: Book V: The Problem Solved)
Henry George: The Land Question (1881) ... it is best that the truth be
fully stated and clearly recognized.
He who sees the truth, let him proclaim it, without asking who is for
it or who is against it. This is not radicalism in the bad sense
which so many attach to the word. This is conservatism in the true
sense. ...
We have here abolished all hereditary privileges and legal distinctions of class. Monarchy, aristocracy, prelacy, we have swept them all away. We have carried mere political democracy to its ultimate. Every child born in the United States may aspire to be President. Every man, even though he be a tramp or a pauper, has a vote, and one man's vote counts for as much as any other man's vote. Before the law all citizens are absolutely equal. In the name of the people all laws run. They are the source of all power, the fountain of all honor. In their name and by their will all government is carried on; the highest officials are but their servants. Primogeniture and entail we have abolished wherever they existed. We have and have had free trade in land. We started with something infinitely better than any scheme of peasant proprietorship which it is possible to carry into effect in Great Britain. We have had for our public domain the best part of an immense continent. We have had the preemption law and the homestead law. It has been our boast that here every one who wished it could have a farm. We have had full liberty of speech and of the press. We have not merely common schools, but high schools and universities, open to all who may choose to attend. Yet here the same social difficulties apparent on the other side of the Atlantic are beginning to appear. It is already clear that our democracy is a vain pretense, our make-believe of equality a sham and a fraud. Already are the sovereign people becoming but a roi fainéant, like the Merovingian kings of France, like the Mikados of Japan. The shadow of power is theirs; but the substance of power is being grasped and wielded by the bandit chiefs of the stock exchange, the robber leaders who organize politics into machines. In any matter in which they are interested, the little finger of the great corporations is thicker than the loins of the people. Is it sovereign States or is it railroad corporations that are really represented in the elective Senate which we have substituted for an hereditary House of Lords? Where is the count or marquis or duke in Europe who wields such power as is wielded by such simple citizens as our Stanfords, Goulds, and Vanderbilts? What does legal equality amount to, when the fortunes of some citizens can be estimated only in hundreds of millions, and other citizens have nothing? What does the suffrage amount to when, under threat of discharge from employment, citizens can be forced to vote as their employers dictate? when votes can be bought on election day for a few dollars apiece? If there are citizens so dependent that they must vote as their employers wish, so poor that a few dollars on election day seem to them more than any higher consideration, then giving them votes simply adds to the political power of wealth, and universal suffrage becomes the surest basis for the establishment of tyranny. "Tyranny"! There is a lesson in the very word. What are our American bosses but the exact antitypes of the Greek tyrants, from whom the word comes? They who gave the word tyrant its meaning did not claim to rule by right divine. They were simply the Grand Sachems of Greek Tammanys, the organizers of Hellenic "stalwart machines." ... read the whole article Henry George: Political Dangers (Chapter 2 of Social Problems, 1883)
Henry George: The Single Tax: What It Is and Why We Urge It (1890) To show briefly why we urge this change,
let me treat (1) of its expediency, and (2) of its justice.
From the Single Tax we may expect these advantages: 1. It would dispense with a whole army of tax gatherers and other officials which present taxes require, and place in the treasury a much larger portion of what is taken from people, while by making government simpler and cheaper, it would tend to make it purer. It would get rid of taxes which necessarily promote fraud, perjury, bribery, and corruption, which lead men into temptation, and which tax what the nation can least afford to spare — honesty and conscience. Since land lies out-of-doors and cannot be removed, and its value is the most readily ascertained of all values, the tax to which we would resort can be collected with the minimum of cost and the least strain on public morals. Henry George: Concentrations of Wealth Harm America (excerpt from Social Problems) (1883) Sources of Great Wealth
An acquaintance of mine died in San Francisco recently, leaving $4,000,000, which will go to heirs to be looked up in England. I have known many men more industrious, more skilful, more temperate than he -- men who did not or who will not leave a cent. This man did not get his wealth by his industry, skill or temperance. He no more produced it than did those lucky relations in England who may now do nothing for the rest of their lives. He became rich by getting hold of a piece of land in the early days, which, as San Francisco grew, became very valuable. His wealth represented not what he had earned, but what the monopoly of this bit of the earth's surface enabled him to appropriate of the earnings of others. A man died in Pittsburgh, the other day, leaving $3,000,000. He may or may not have been particularly industrious, skilful and economical, but it was not by virtue of these qualities that he got so rich. It was because he went to Washington and helped lobby through a bill which, by way of "protecting American workmen against the pauper labor of Europe," gave him the advantage of a 66% tariff. To the day of his death he was a stanch protectionist, and said free trade would ruin our "infant industries." Evidently the $3,000,000 which he was enabled to lay by from his own little cherub of an "infant industry" did not represent what he had added to production. It was the advantage given him by the tariff that enabled him to scoop it up from other people's earnings. This element of monopoly, of appropriation and spoliation will, when we come to analyze them, be found largely to account for all great fortunes.... Take the great Vanderbilt fortune. The first Vanderbilt was a boatman who earned money by hard work and saved it. But it was not working and saving that enabled him to leave such an enormous fortune. It was spoliation and monopoly. As soon as he got money enough he used it as a club to extort from others their earnings. He ran off opposition lines and monopolized routes of steamboat travel. Then he went into railroads, pursuing the same tactics. The Vanderbilt fortune no more comes from working and saving than did the fortune that Captain Kidd buried. Or take the great Gould fortune. Mr. Gould might have got his first little start by superior industry and superior self-denial. But it is not that which has made him the master of a hundred millions. It was by wrecking railroads, buying judges, corrupting legislatures, getting up rings and pools and combinations to raise or depress stock values and transportation rates. So, like wise, of the great fortunes which the Pacific railroads have created. They have been made by lobbying through profligate donations of lands, bonds and subsidies, by the operations of Credit Mobilier and Contract and Finance Companies, by monopolizing and gouging. And so of fortunes made by such combinations as the Standard Oil Company, the Bessemer Steel Ring, the Whisky Tax Ring, the Lucifer Match Ring, and the various rings for the "protection of the American workman from the pauper labor of Europe." Or take the fortunes made out of successful patents. Like that element in so many fortunes that comes from the increased value of land, these result from monopoly, pure and simple. And though I am not now discussing the expediency of patent laws, it may be observed, in passing, that in the vast majority of cases the men who make fortunes out of patents are not the men who make the inventions. Through all great fortunes, and, in fact, through nearly all acquisitions that in these days can fairly be termed fortunes, these elements of monopoly, of spoliation, of gambling run. The head of one of the largest manufacturing firms in the United States said to me recently, "It is not on our ordinary business that we make our money; it is where we can get a monopoly." And this, I think, is generally true. The Evils of Monopolists
Consider the important part in building up fortunes which the increase of land values has had, and is having, in the United States. This is, of course, monopoly, pure and simple. When land increases in value it does not mean that its owner has added to the general wealth. The owner may never have seen the land or done aught to improve it. He may, and often does, live in a distant city or in another country. Increase of land values simply means that the owners, by virtue of their appropriation of something that existed before man was, have the power of taking a larger share of the wealth produced by other people's labor. Consider how much the monopolies created and the advantages given to the unscrupulous by the tariff and by our system of internal taxation -- how much the railroad (a business in its nature a monopoly), telegraph, gas, water and other similar monopolies, have done to concentrate wealth; how special rates, pools, combinations, corners, stock-watering and stock-gambling, the destructive use of wealth in driving off or buying off opposition which the public must finally pay for, and many other things which these will suggest, have operated to build up large fortunes, and it will at least appear that the unequal distribution of wealth is due in great measure to sheer spoliation; that the reason why those who work hard get so little, while so many who work little get so much, is, in very large measure, that the earnings of the one class are, in one way or another, filched away from them to swell the incomes of the other. That individuals are constantly making their way from the ranks of those who get less than their earnings to the ranks of those who get more than their earnings, no more proves this state of things right than the fact that merchant sailors were constantly becoming pirates and participating in the profits of piracy, would prove that piracy was right and that no effort should be made to suppress it. I am not denouncing the rich, nor seeking, by speaking of these things, to excite envy and hatred; but if we would get a clear understanding of social problems, we must recognize the fact that it is due to monopolies which we permit and create, to advantages which we give one man over another, to methods of extortion sanctioned by law and by public opinion, that some men are enabled to get so enormously rich while others remain so miserably poor. If we look around us and note the elements of monopoly, extortion and spoliation which go to the building up of all, or nearly all, fortunes, we see on the one hand now disingenuous are those who preach to us that there is nothing wrong in social relations and that the inequalities in the distribution of wealth spring from the inequalities of human nature; and on the other hand, we see how wild are those who talk as though capital were a public enemy, and propose plans for arbitrarily restricting the acquisition of wealth. Capital is a good; the capitalist is a helper, if he is not also a monopolist. We can safely let any one get as rich as he can if he will not despoil others in doing so. There are deep wrongs in the present constitution
of society, but they are not wrongs inherent in the constitution of man nor
in those social laws which are as truly the laws of the Creator as are the
laws of the physical universe. They are wrongs resulting from bad adjustments
which it is within our power to amend. The ideal social state is not that
in which each gets an equal amount of wealth, but in which each gets in proportion
to his contribution to the general stock. And in such a social state there
would not be less incentive to exertion than now; there would be far more
incentive. Men will be more industrious and more moral, better workmen and
better citizens, if each takes his earnings and carries them home to his
family, than where they put their earnings in a "pot" and gamble for them
until some have far more than they could have earned, and others have little
or nothing. ... Read the entire article Rev. A. C. Auchmuty: Gems from George, a themed collection of excerpts from the writings of Henry George (with links to sources)
William Ogilvie: An Essay on the Right of Property in Land (Scotland, 1782) That nation is greatly deceived
and misled which bestows any
encouragement on manufactures for exportation, or for any purpose but
the necessary internal supply, until the great manufactures of grain
and pasturage are carried to their utmost extent -- it can never be in
the interest of the community; it may be in that of the landholders,
who desire indeed to be considered as the nation itself, or at least as
being representatives of the nation, and having the same interest with
the whole body of the people.
D. C. MacDonald: Preface
(1891?) to Ogilvie's
Essay
(circa 1782)(When mention is made in political reasonings of the interest of any nation, and those circumstances, by which it is supposed to be injured or promoted, are canvassed, it is generally the interest of the landholders that is kept in view.) In fact, however, their interest is, in some most important respects, directly opposite to that of the great body of the community, over whom they exercise an ill-regulated jurisdiction, together with an oppressive monopoly in the commerce of land to be hired for cultivation. Property in Land, as at present established, is a monopoly of the most pernicious kind. The interest of landholders is substituted for that of the community; it ought to be the same, but it is not. The landholders of a nation levy the most oppressive of all taxes; they receive the most unmerited of all pensions: if tithes are oppressive to industry, rents capable of being raised from time to time are much more so.... Read the entire essay Professor Ogilvie, who came
after Locke, devotes himself in this treatise to one subject - Birthright in land,
it may be called. And the Author may be justly styled - The Euclid of
Land Law Reform. He has left little or nothing unsolved in connection
with the Land Question. He has given us a true base line -- man’s equal
right to the raw material of the earth, to the air, to the water, to
the rays of the sun, and all natural products -- from which we can work
out any problem, and by which we can test the “title and measure” of
every man’s property. Resting on this baseline -- man’s natural rights
-- he represents to us the perpendicular line of man's right to labour,
“with security of reaping its full produce and just reward.” Here we
have the question in a nutshell. Take away the base line, and you have
no right to labour, and no produce or reward, except what may be meted
out by the usurper of your natural rights. You have to beg for leave to
toil! We thus see clearly how the robbery of labour may be prevented,
and how impossible it is to put a stop to such robbery while the
industrial classes neglect to claim and exercise their natural right --
their right to an equal share in the earth, and all its natural
products.
Strikes against low wages, high rents, unjust taxation, absurd conflicts between capital and labour, rebellions against this or that form of government, are futile skirmishes, and very frequently are of the suicidal cock-fighting order, at which the real enemy, elevated on a grand stand, simply laugh. To contend successfully with these evils, society must learn to begin at the source thereof. While labourers are content to remain deprived of their natural rights, they must pay whatever ransom the brigands who have seized these rights choose to demand. Not only is industry robbed, taxed, and crippled, but the brigand, as dog-in-the-manger, very often puts an entire stop to it, and thus the happiness and comfort of millions of mankind, who are willing to work, are curtailed or wholly sacrificed, and misery and starvation reign instead. I am somewhat afraid to say hard things against brigandage. An institution that is still propped up by Law and Order, and supported (or winked at) on almost every hand by the avowed servants of Jesus Christ, must be touched with a “gentle hand.” William Ogilvie has done so in the Essay now before us. Although a landlord himself, he did not disregard the truth, and it will be found that his pen was guided by an impartial and benevolent spirit. ... Read the entire preface Henry George: Concentrations of Wealth Harm America (excerpt from Social Problems) (1883) There is a suggestive fact that
must impress any one who
thinks over the history of past eras and preceding civilizations. The
great, wealthy and powerful nations have always lost their freedom;
it is only in small, poor and isolated communities that Liberty has
been maintained. So true is this that the poets have always sung that
Liberty loves the rocks and tile mountains; that she shrinks from
wealth and power and splendor, from the crowded city and the busy
mart....
The mere growth of society involves danger of the gradual conversion of government into something independent of and beyond the people, and the gradual seizure of its powers by a ruling class -- though not necessarily a class marked off by personal titles and a hereditary status, for, as history shows, personal titles and hereditary status do not accompany the concentration of power, but follow it. The same methods which, in a little town where each knows his neighbor and matters of common interest are under the common eye, enable the citizens freely to govern themselves, may, in a great city, as we have in many cases seen, enable an organized ring of plunderers to gain and hold the government. So, too, as we see in Congress, and even in our State legislatures, the growth of the country and the greater number of interests make the proportion of the votes of a representative, of which his constituents know or care to know, less and less. And so, too, the executive and judicial departments tend constantly to pass beyond the scrutiny of the people. But to the changes produced by
growth are, with us, added the
changes brought about by improved industrial methods. The tendency of
steam and of machinery is to the division of labor, to the
concentration of wealth and power. Workmen are becoming massed by
hundreds and thousands in the employ of single individuals and firms;
small storekeepers and merchants are becoming the clerks and salesmen
of great business houses; we have already corporations whose revenues
and pay rolls belittle those of the greatest States. And with this
concentration grows the facility of combination among these great
business interests. How readily the railroad companies, the coal
operators, the steel producers, even the match manufacturers,
combine, either to regulate prices or to use the powers of
government! The tendency in all branches of industry is to the
formation of rings against which the individual is helpless, and
which exert their power upon government whenever their interests may
thus be served.
It is not merely positively, but negatively, that great aggregations of wealth, whether individual or corporate, tend to corrupt government and take it out of the control of the masses of the people. "Nothing is more timorous than a million dollars -- except two million dollars." Great wealth always supports the party in power, no matter how corrupt it may be. It never exerts itself for reform, for it instinctively fears change. It never struggles against misgovemment. When threatened by the holders of political power it does not agitate, nor appeal to the people; it buys them off. It is in this way, no less than by its direct interference, that aggregated wealth corrupts government, and helps to make politics a trade. Our organized lobbies, both legislative and Congressional, rely as much upon the fears as upon the hopes of moneyed interests. When "business" is dull, their resource is to get up a bill which some moneyed interest will pay them to beat. So, too, these large moneyed interests will subscribe to political funds, on the principle of keeping on the right side of those in power, just as the railroad companies deadhead [transport for free] President [Chester A.] Arthur when he goes to Florida to fish. ... As for the great railroad managers, they may well say, "The people be d-d!" When they want the power of the people they buy the people's masters. The map of the United States is colored to show States and Territories. A map of real political powers would ignore State lines. Here would be a big patch representing the domains of Vanderbilt; there Jay Gould's dominions would be brightly marked. In another place would be set off the empire of Stanford and Huntington; in another the newer empire of Henry Villard. The States and parts of States that own the sway of the Pennsylvania Central would be distinguished from those ruled by the Baltimore and Ohio; and so on. In our National Senate, sovereign members of the Union are supposed to be represented; but what are more truly represented are railroad longs and great moneyed interests, though occasionally a mine jobber from Nevada or Colorado, not inimical to the ruling powers, is suffered to buy himself a seat for glory. And the Bench as well as the Senate is being filled with corporation henchmen. A railroad king makes his attorney a judge of last resort, as the great lord used to make his chaplain a bishop.... Read the entire article Henry George — The Study of Political Economy
Henry George — Progress and Poverty, abridged, Chapter 6: Population and Subsistence
Fred E. Foldvary — The Ultimate Tax Reform: Public Revenue from Land Rent
Joseph Stiglitz: October, 2002, interview
Charles T. Root — Not a Single Tax! (1925)
Michael Hudson: The Lies of the Land: How and why land gets undervalued Turning land-value gains into
capital gains
Hiding the free lunch Two appraisal methods How land gets a negative value! Where did all the land value go? A curious asymmetry Site values as the economy's "credit sink" Immortally aging buildings Real estate industry's priorities THE FREE LUNCH * Its cost to citizens * Its cost to the economy SUMMARY YOU MAY THINK the largest category of assets in this countrly is industrial plant and machinery. In fact the US Federal Reserve Board's annual balance sheet shows real estate to be the economy's largest asset, two-thirds of America's wealth and more than 60 percent of that in land, depending on the assessment method. Most
capital gains are land-value
gains. The big players do not
want their profits in rent, which is taxed as ordinary income, but in
capital gains, taxed at a lower rate. To benefit as much as
possible
from today's real estate bubble of fast rising land values they
pledge a property's rent income to pay interest on the debt for as
much property as they can buy with as little of their own money as
possible. After paying off the mortgage lender they sell the property
and get to keep the "capital gain."
This price appreciation is actually a "land gain," that is, it's not from providing start-up capital for new enterprises, but from sitting on a rising asset already in place, the land. Its value rises because neighbourhoods are upgraded, mortgage money is ample, and rezoning is favorable from farmland on the outskirts of cities to gentrification of the core to create high-income residential developments. The potential capital gain can be huge. That's why developers are willing to pay their mortgage lenders so much of their rent income, often all of it. Of course, investing most surplus
income and wealth in land has
been going on ever since antiquity, and also pledging one's land for
debt ("mortgaging the homestead") that often led to its forfeiture to
creditors or to forced sale under distress conditions. Today
borrowing against land is a path to getting rich -- before the land
bubble bursts. As economies have grown richer, most of their
surplus
is still being spent acquiring real property, both for prestige and
because its flow of rental income grows as society's prosperity
grows. That's why lenders find real estate to be the collateral of
choice.
Most new entries into the Forbes or Fortune lists of the richest men consist of real estate billionaires, or individuals coming from the fuels and minerals industries or natural monopolies. Those who have not inherited family fortunes have gained their wealth by borrowing money to buy assets that have soared in value. Land may not be a factor of production, but it enables its owners to assert claims of ownership and obligation, i.e., rentier income in the forms of rent and interest. Over the past 40 years I have specialised in the study of the factors that raise or lower the nation's overall real estate prices -- rising income and savings levels, shifting interest rates and the financial sector's supply of mortgage credit, as well as changes in the tax laws and related market-shaping rules. This work for Wall Street banks and institutional investors was burdened by the absence of reliable data on the value of land and buildings. The official nationwide real estate statistics do suggest that a politically motivated asymmetry is at work in the economy, benefiting real estate, which I shall now attempt to identify. ... Two appraisal methods PROPERTY IS APPRAISED in two ways. Both start by estimating its market value.
If it is agreed that any
explanation of land/building relations
should be symmetrical through boom and bust periods alike, then the
same appraisal methodology should be able to explain the decline of
property values as well as their rise. The methodology should be as
uniform and homogeneous as possible. By
that, I mean that similar land should be valued at a homogeneous
price, and buildings of equivalent worth should be valued
accordingly.
If these two criteria are accepted, then I believe that economists would treat buildings as the residual, not the land. Yet just the opposite usually is done. THE DRIVING FORCE behind the anomalies is the political lobbying eager to depict real estate gains simply as "protecting capital from inflation." In reality, it helps land owners and their creditors get a free ride out of land asset-price inflation -- that is, The Bubble. ... Immortally aging buildings INCOME TAX LIABILITY may be minimized in two ways.
This fiscal privilege has created a phantom real estate economy. Buildings acquire death-defying lives, metamorphosing time and again for the purpose of enabling their owners to avoid paying income taxes. For commercial real estate investors as a whole, the repeated depreciation of buildings has made commercial real estate investment largely exempt from the income tax. Homeowners are not permitted to charge depreciation on their own residences, but only on buildings that they rent out. The tax laws governing depreciation thus turn largely on how much value is assigned to buildings relative to the land, which is not depreciable. Like manufacturers, real estate owners are permitted to count part of the revenue over and above their current expenses as a return of their capital investment, as distinct from taxable earnings on capital. No income taxes are levied on this part of their revenue. That is only fair, because an investor who buys a $100 bond only pays tax on the interest, not on the original $100 principal. Likewise, industrialists can recover their initial investment in plant and equipment without being taxed. Their "sunk cost" gets reimbursed, so that they get their capital back by the time the equipment wears out or becomes obsolete. For real estate, however, the economics are unique. Machinery rarely can be re-depreciated, but this is not true of buildings as long as they are kept in proper repair. Maintenance and repairs typically consume about 10 percent of the rental value. For business owners, the explicit purpose of this expenditure is to maintain the building's value intact, so that it can survive year after year and avoid obsolescence while its site value rises. If a building is sold at a higher price, its assessment usually is raised. Suppose a property is sold for twice the $1 milliuon the owner paid for it. The local appraiser is likely to say; "I see you've sold your building for $2 million. Under my rule of thumb, I appraise the land as half this value, and the building as half, so that gives you a $1 million dollar building." Under this rule, the building that was formerly priced at $500,000 can be re-depreciated at a price that builds in this $500,000 gain. In this way a substantial portion of the rise in site value of non-depreciable land is treated as depreciable building value. Real estate industry's priorities REAL ESTATE LOBBIES recognize that
what is not seen is less likely
to be taxed. What is not quantified for public policy-makers to see
clearly may avoid taxes, leaving property owners with a larger
after-tax return. They prefer land-residual's capital gains
statistics at the national level, even as individual investors seek
site-value gains at the local level.
This explains the seeming irony that investors in an industry dealing primarily with the development of land sites have campaigned to minimize the statistical treatment of land. Relegating land to merely secondary status enables the real estate industry to depict its "capital" gains as resulting from cost inflation and hence the reproduction costs of buildings -- whose value is allowed to be depreciated and re-depreciated at rising values over time. The free lunch of land-price gains is unseen as attention is diverted from the real estate bubble and land-price inflation to building costs. These fiscal considerations help to explain why it has been so hard to get Washington to produce national land value statistics. The 2001 Nobel Prize was awarded to economists who recognized the unevenness of market knowledge. It would seem that this asymmetry exists especially in the real industry. Investors and developers know that the name of the game is capital gains. They use one set of statistics to calculate their Total Returns, but get government statisticians and Congressional authors of the nation's tax laws.to support a different logic for their tax returns. Tax favouritism for real estate was defended in Congress on the ground that it was in the public interest to provide a special inducement to the real estate industry to build more homes and office buildings. But as Adam Smith observed, every industry represents itself as serving the public interest. Can one really say that investors borrowing 70 percent of private-sector loans to ride the wave of asset-price inflation are more in the national economic interest than favoring direct investors to build new plant and businesses that employ labor rather than pricing homes, office buildings and industrial sites further and further out of reach of those who must earn their income by increasing society's productive powers?... SUMMARY
For hundreds of years property's value has been calculated by discounting its flow of rental income at the going rate of interest. The lower the interest rate, the higher the price a given rental stream will justify -- or as property owners express it, the more years' rent a property will bring. What is so striking about land values today is that they are rising for reasons independent of their earnings stream. The major new consideration is their prospect for future "capital" (that is, land-price) gains. In sum, the ultimate aim of real estate investors no longer is so much to seek income -- most of which is pledged to their bankers as interest payments on the property they acquire -- as much as to seek property gains. Politically opportunites abound. Merely changing zoning in New York City in the 1980s to allow using commercial loft spaces for residential purposes had the effect of multiplying asset values five or tenfold. Whether the gains come from selling the property or from borrowing more money against it, the essential phenomenon is the rapid growth in asset values and real estate's uniquely favored tax treatment. That's why investors choose real estate instead of bonds or stocks, and much of the strategy underlying corporate takeovers has followed the strategies they developed over the past half century. Nationwide the capital-gains
dimension needs to be incorporated
into the rental revenue statistics to measure real estate's total
returns. This sector's
nearly complete success in escaping the tax
collector has placed an enormous tax burden on everyone else.
read the
entire article
Ted Gwartney: Estimating Land Values Not only is land rent a
potentially important source of public
revenue, the tax on land is a means of limiting excessive speculation
in land prices. This would ensure that the equal opportunity to be
productive would be available to all citizens. With limited money to
invest, people could invest in productive equipment and wages, rather
than in high land prices which produce no additional tangible
wealth. ...
THE SOURCE OF PUBLIC REVENUE What are the factors that cause land to have market value and to whom does this market revenue advantage properly belong? Land has market value for three reasons: the limited supply and "natural" productivity of the soil and natural resources, the publicly provided services, including planning, improvements that increase the market value of land and the growth of communities and peoples' competitive demand for the exclusive use of prime locations. Land rent is the price that people and businesses are willing to pay for the exclusive right to possess and use a good land site for a period of time. For example, people prefer to use sites of good location because it gives them an advantage of spending less time in travel by being near what they choose to do and where they work. A businessman can sell more goods at a site where many people pass each day, compared to a site where only a few people would pass. The collection of land rent should be used as revenue, by the community for supplying public needs. This returns the advantage an individual land possessor receives from the exclusive use of a land site, to the balance of the people who live within the community and have allowed the land possessor the exclusive use of the land site for the period of time. ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION
It is the responsibility of the local communities to insure that the market rent of land is collected for public purposes. When a major part of land rent is not collected, which is the case in most of the world today, land title holders obtain rights to sell the value of the public improvements which were made by the whole community. The community added to the market value to land by making improvements which increases demand and rent for the land. The longer the possessors hold the land out of use the greater will be the bonus they obtain. By prohibiting people from using good land, the possessors force the premature use of other less desirable land, which is more distant from the city. This raises the cost of community improvements and the rental value of the unused, but better located, land. This precipitates the degradation of the rural environment by using city land inefficiently -- and creates huge unnecessary pressures on the natural environment. Any
moves to enact good government principles without collecting
the full market rent of the land may result in a failure. People are
guided by the profit motive. When people can make a larger profit by
doing nothing, but keeping the land they possess out of use for a
long period of time, they will do so. When the community
collects the
full market rent of land, they eliminate the motive for keeping land
out of efficient use, because the unearned profit has been collected
as public revenue. ...
When the rent of land is taken for public purposes production and distribution are not held back. This is because the same amount of rent would otherwise have been taken by some private individual. The rent would be the same, the difference is how it is utilized. There is evidence that communities who raise their revenue from land, rather than from labor and capital, are more prosperous, many increasing productivity by more than 25%. In order to preserve the environment, it is necessary and possible to better utilize our communities. If the producers of the land market value (nature, government and people) don't utilize land rent, someone else will. This is why efficient land use fails under contemporary land systems in most countries. All countries collect some of the land rent, perhaps 10%, 20% or 30%, but none yet, collect all of the market rent of land. ... Read the whole article Bill Batt: The Merits of Site Value Taxation Debate about the influence of
various tax designs on social and
economic behavior is nowhere clearer than in attempts to describe and
define the concept of tax expenditures.45
Some taxes are more evil than others, and Milton Friedman once said
that a tax on land value is the "least worst" tax.6
Tax
expenditures are special provisions in the tax code, any tax code, that
forgo the collection of certain revenues with the intent that their
retention by taxpayers will foster public purposes better than through
programs financed directly through the budgetary process. ...
Taxes have generally
come to be regarded as a necessary evil, but not all taxes are equally
evil.
To the extent that taxing powers of government are used to implement social policies beyond the collection of revenue, they take on a complexity and a political tenor that involve a number of counterproductive elements. The acceptance of tax expenditures as a means of effectuating public policy in the tax code has led increasingly legislators' vulnerability to the crude blandishments of a host of special pleaders. Such considerations deserve attention and should be kept in mind when the designs of tax structures are discussed. Most often they are ignored. ... Read the whole piece Bill Batt: Stemming Sprawl: The Fiscal Approach Bill Batt: How Our Towns Got That Way (1996 speech) As recently as a century ago
classical economic thought still
regarded land for the most part as the common heritage of mankind.
From Adam Smith, through Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, and finally
with John Stuart Mill economic productivity was regarded as a
function of three interacting factors: land, labor, and capital. John
Locke also accepted these premises. To achieve optimal economic
productivity, one had to exact the appropriate price from each of
those factors. The price of labor was in wages; the price of capital
was interest; and the price of land, particularly following the
thinking of David Ricardo, was rent. Rent in its classical sense
means payment for the use of something in fixed supply, or, more
generally, payments above the costs incurred for its creation.
Disequilibriums and inefficiencies in economic development resulted
if the appropriate prices were not paid for each factor. But, as we
shall see, there were powerful interests in this country, bent on not
seeing any rent extracted from land use, that persuaded the nascent
economics profession at the end of the 19th century no longer to
regard land as a separate factor and to redefine the terms of
production instead in two-factor theory. This was concurrent with
the inclusion of land as property, since called "real property."
As land came to be transferred to other nobility and usurped under title in fee simple rather than in usufruct, it came to be regarded as a private financial asset. Earlier it was regarded as part of nature, much like air, water, wind and weather. Accounting practices now listed land as an asset "owned" in fee simple, and as a liability on the other side of balance sheets in money "owed" to banks. This tendency has been extended today so that we have privatized much of our air, water, wind, and even sunlight. Land came to be simply one kind of capital, nothing special, nothing requiring further treatment. Ricardo's Law of Rent became an artifact of intellectual history. The conflation of land into capital to create two-factor economics is one of the greatest paradigm shifts in the evolution of social philosophy. How the premises and terms of economic discourse have been changed has been documented for the first time in a new book by a California professor of economics, Mason Gaffney. The account is put forth in fascinating detail entitled, The Corruption of Economics. It was indeed a corruption of a discipline, a deliberate putsch by powerful economic forces with an interest in seeing such definitions changed, and we have all been paying the price since that time. This revealing thesis is what I really want to relate to you, and to explain the dire consequences it has had for us in our contemporary world. I have come to believe it; it makes sense to me, both historically and in contemporary analysis, from several perspectives. The Corruption of Economics As I explained, classical economics emerged from a school of thinkers known as the Scottish moralists in the latter part of the 18th century. There ultimately evolved three major schools of economic thought a century later, one the continuing tradition of Adam Smith through J.S. Mill, a second being the aggressive and emerging school of Marxism, and the third a proposal for two-factor economics being pressed largely by interests in America. Marxism was never a major force in United States; the primary challenge to the classical tradition came from what has since come to be known as neo-classical economics. Professor Gaffney has for the first time shown how powerful economic interests in American society essentially bought the leading figures of the newly- established American Economics Association with all the blandishments that can be used to influence academicians. Leading scholars were induced to change definitions of terms so that special interests would be advantaged. What were those interests? Primarily the railroad industry, which at the time was probably the most powerful political force in America. By changing definitions and conflating the land factor into capital, it was no longer essential for land rent to be paid in taxes, and the railroads, holders of some of the most valuable land in the nation, were thereby able to escape their full duty. This is an astonishing story, one never fully spelled out until now, and it explains both how the academic community was beholden to powerful interests and how many of the social problems we see today could have been avoided. The classical tradition of economic thought was ably synthesized and represented by one dominant figure of the age: Henry George. All but forgotten today, perhaps in good part due to the assiduous disparagement of his economic foes, one should note that he was more widely known in his time in America than anyone except Thomas Edison. His 1879 book, Progress and Poverty, sold more copies throughout the world than any book till that time except the Bible. Born in Philadelphia the son of a publisher of religious books, he traveled to California as a young man to make his fortune as a journalist. But what he saw in land speculation and the exploitation of labor soon led him to study the classical economists and to write his ideas down. Upon publication of his book he shortly became known throughout the world, and traveled and lectured widely as a social reformer for the rest of his life. By the time he died he had become so famous that he almost won the mayoralty of the city of New York. He ran twice, losing to Tammany Hall the first time in what was probably a corrupt election (but beating the third-place finisher, Theodore Roosevelt) in 1886, and died four days before a second election he might have won in 1897. As a spellbinding orator and lucid writer, he captivated the world with his vision of societies made more just by a proper understanding of economics. Gaffney shows that it was George, not Marx, that was the primary threat to dominant interests in end-of-century United States. He had to be stopped, and he was. In classical economics, the definition of capital grew out of labor mixed with earlier capital. Land, by conventional definition, was not capital, nor was it a component of wealth. Rather land was its own category. Conflating land into capital allowed land rent to be hidden and diluted in ways so that the unearned increment arising from social improvements fell to speculators rather than being returned to society in rent. The failure of society to recapture the appropriate level of land rent from titleholders led also to depression of labor wages at the margin, creating poverty and artificial scarcity of labor where otherwise it could be relieved. Hence the title of George's book, Progress and Poverty. George recognized that the value of any land parcel arose out of its social activity, not from anything which a titleholder might have done to it. He recognized that many, perhaps most, titleholders in land were speculators, reaping the benefit of others' investments, and selling out at last when their price was met. Hence it made sense that society had a right to a return on what it had brought about, as well as from the fact that those titles could never be other than leaseholds. That land rent, shortly confused by use of the words "single tax," was, to George, the rightful return to society. The railroad barons of the 19th century were not just coincidentally the land barons. They also had strong holds on the founding and growth of the major American universities of the period, some of which carry their names. Johns Hopkins, Andrew Dickson White, Daniel Gilman, John D. Rockefeller, George Leland Stanford, Nicholas Murray Butler were all as attached to various universities in the country as they were to powerful railroad interests. They were able, through their control of universities either as actual presidents or as benefactors, to influence the dominant figures responsible for establishing the American Economic Association in 1885. The actual intrigue is too complex to be recounted here: who got appointed and promoted, who was funded in research, which were given endowed chairs, who got stock options, and so on. The preoccupation with defeating Henry George, Gaffney shows, was a paramount preoccupation of all of these figures. The central figures were:
These figures are even today the honored founders of an esteemed profession. So great was their victory over rival schools of thought that they are a century later seen as paragons of clear thinking and virtue. The intrigue and the inside deals are long forgotten. The lineage to contemporary scholarship continues in a "chain unbroken from Seelye to Clark to Johnson to Knight to Stigler, Friedman, Harberger and now thousands of Chicago-oriented economists." Indeed, when Henry George ran for mayor of New York in 1897, it was against the wealthy patrician Seth Low, President of Columbia University, who had recently recruited Clark to come to Columbia. To really understand the academic tension of the period, one must look at the published papers, the speeches and debates, the newspaper articles, and the citations at the end of those articles. These, even more than the interlocking directorates of faculty appointments, explain how much George was opposed, perhaps more feared. Was it for the falsity of his views? Clearly not, as few critics then or since then have managed to strike a knock-out blow against his theories. Rather, it was the threat George represented to powerful interests that required him to be defeated, and in doing so they succeeded but only in the short run, as they were within decades victims of their very successes. Today we see that the railroads have failed in this country for lack of traffic. It will soon be evident why. There were many arguments to be made for the classical tradition, the result of which would be to rely upon payment of rent of land according to its value to society. George recognized that land value is largely a function of how society has elected to invest in any general neighborhood; there is no argument for any one titleholder to reap the reward of what others have invested. Gaffney points out that, from the standpoint of economic theory, the framework had the following virtues:
Those economists who today still persistently hold to the view that there is something special about land that make it unwise to treat as a form of capital are known as Georgists. They represent a small minority of the economics profession, but, little known as they are, they are among its most esteemed members. Two-factor economics, however, had advantages to influential individuals and special interests. Land speculators who were positioned to profit from knowing where locational values would increase, or were in a position to cause those increases, could quickly and easily reap a private gain. Simply by holding title to parcels of real property, without doing anything at all to increase their value, one could quickly turn a profit. This is because the increment of unearned increases resulting from social investments were left for owners to reap rather than recovered by society. In three-factor economics, land rent reverted to society in an automatic and efficient manner. When a railroad magnate like George Leland Stanford extended the Southern Pacific track to the east of Los Angeles on land that he was granted by the government, all he then needed to do was to sit back and wait for the land sales to give him a return on that which was made more valuable by his investment in the line. All across America, land speculators learned that capturing monopoly titles to tracts of land allowed them to quickly and easily turn a "profit" on their investment yet hardly raising a finger.... read the whole article Bill Batt: Fallacies of the Slippery Slope Argument Some explanations
reflect downright corruption. The earliest cars
manufactured in this country and in Europe were electric;
streetcars also were largely electric powered until a conspiracy of the
automobile and petroleum industry exerted its force to ensure that
fossil fuel powered motor vehicles would dominate our transportation
and land use patterns.15 Our
motor-vehicle-dependent and urban sprawl
configurations can be explained by powerful interests continually
pressing for policies to make us so. One might even conclude that the
decision to drive on the right side of the road was equally as much a
defining moment.
15 This is an
untold story. A trial was held in a Chicago federal
court in 1949, resulting in an indictment of GM, Firestone, Standard
Oil, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks among others. Their crime
was in forming a holding company called National City Lines which
proceeded in the preceding decade to buy up the public transportation
services in dozens of US cities, and then scrapping them so that
people would then become more automobile dependent. The corporations
were fined $5,000 each, and the CEOs of each one $1. See United
States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, 93rd Congress, 2nd
Session, “American Ground Transport: A Proposal for
Restructuring the Automobile, Truck, Bus, and Rail Industries,”
by Bradford C. Snell, February 26, 1974 (Washington: US Government
Printing Office, 1974); and Jonathan Kwitney, “The Great
Transportation Conspiracy,” Harper’s Magazine, February,
1981.
And I hope that you will forgive me for mentioning another great conspiracy in American history, the subject of my Torch presentation about four years ago. That story recounted how the American railroad industry, in collusion with the banks, induced the founders of the American economics profession to change definitions and formulas so that they would be relieved of taxation on their land holdings and speculation would be rewarded.16 This dividing line between classical and neoclassical economics is responsible I believe for many of our economic problems today — economic cycles, an inequitable tax structure, poverty and unemployment, urban sprawl and the gutting of urban centers. Only now is this economic ideology, almost sacrosanct for a century, falling apart and seen for what it is. ... read the whole article Bill Batt: How the Railroads Got Us On the Wrong Economic Track Professor Gaffney has for the
first time shown how powerful
economic interests in American society essentially bought the leading
figures of the newly-established American Economics Association with
all the blandishments that can be used to influence academicians.
Leading scholars were induced to change definitions of terms so that
special interests would be advantaged. What were those interests?
Primarily the railroad industry, which at the time was probably the
most powerful political force in America. By changing definitions and
conflating the land factor into capital, it was no longer essential
for land rent to be paid in taxes, and the railroads, holders of some
of the most valuable land in the nation, were thereby able to escape
their full duty. This is an astonishing story, one never fully
spelled out until now, and it explains both how the academic
community was beholden to powerful interests and how many of the
social problems we see today could have been avoided.
The classical tradition of economic thought was ably synthesized and represented by one dominant figure of the age: Henry George. All but forgotten today, perhaps in good part due to the assiduous disparagement of his economic foes, one should note that he was more widely known in his time in America than anyone except Thomas Edison. His 1879 book, Progress and Poverty, sold more copies throughout the world than any book till that time except the Bible. Born in Philadelphia the son of a publisher of religious books, he travelled to California as a young man to make his fortune as a journalist. But what he saw in land speculation and the exploitation of labor soon led him to study the classical economists and to write his ideas down. Upon publication of his book he shortly became known throughout the world, and travelled and lectured widely as a social reformer for the rest of his life. By the time he died he had become so famous that he almost won the mayoralty of the city of New York. He ran twice, losing to Tammany Hall the first time in what was probably a corrupt election (but beating the third-place finisher, Theodore Roosevelt) in 1886, and died four days before a second election he might have won in 1897. As a spellbinding orator and lucid writer, he captivated the world with his vision of societies made more just by a proper understanding of economics. Gaffney shows that it was George, not Marx, that was the primary threat to dominant interests in end-of-century United States. He had to be stopped, and he was. ... read the whole article Mason Gaffney: Property Tax: Biases and Reforms Residents of timber counties are
typically scattered and poorly
organized. Timber companies are huge, rich, few and tightly
organized. In Mendocino County, Georgia Pacific and Louisiana
Pacific, absentee owners, together own the best 500,000 acres - 58
percent of the County's timberland - and Georgia-Pacific owns
Louisiana-Pacific. They control state forestry schools, paying
professors as consultants. They support research in forest economics
at think tanks like Resources for the Future in Washington, which has
never criticized their tax preferences but trained its big guns on
public agencies, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management. "The industry" controls tax laws in 50 states, and
sloughs tax burdens onto others. It will continue to do so until
other taxpayers in the timber counties wake up and organize to
control state timber tax laws.... Read the whole article
Alanna Hartzok: In the History of Thought: Henry George's "Single Tax"
Weld Carter: A Clarion Call to Sanity, to Honesty, to Justice (1982) Back in the early days of this century, Winston Churchill saw and recorded an example of this. There had been a ferry fare over the river Thames for the common laborers who lived on the wrong side of the river to pay in order to get to work. A spirit of nobility prompted the absorption of this fare by the City, and almost immediately rents in the working class area were increased by the same amount as the fare had been. When this thing was done, the guys who got the benefit were not the poor working class people, but the owners of the homes in which they lived, or, more accurately and more critically, the owners of the land on which those homes stood. The laborers were thus charged a higher rent, and that rent diverted the benefit from the seemingly intended beneficiary (i.e., the public) to landowners in the affected area. This occurs every day in this country. A new road is built, or a superhighway is constructed, which makes access to a particular site much easier. We tell ourselves that we justify this as an expenditure of public funds by the benefits that accrue to the traveling public; but the benefits go, in the form of higher land prices and rents, to the owners of the sites that are served by this new road. If you doubt this, consider the jockeying for the insider information or for influence over the selection. Robert Caro, in his biography of Robert Moses, recalls the time in the early 1920s that Moses suggested to the authorities the building of a causeway from the Long Island mainland over to Jones Island. This proposal was rejected outright by the Long Island Park Commission. Some months later, Moses presented them with a drawing showing precisely where this causeway would run, and, after a suitable period of during which these public employees could buy up the land along the proposed highway, he resubmitted his proposal. This time, they officially approved the suggested construction. In the town of Antioch, Illinois, there were two developments underway almost simultaneously. In the one, roads were provided, together with water and sewer lines, but no sidewalks; in the other, just across a main road from the first, the mayor of the city had storm sewers, curbs and sidewalks installed at public expense, for which of course, any prospective buyer or tenant would gladly pay for use of that land the higher price these added benefits provided. Any reader will recognize this chain of events and set of economic relationships as being the course of everyday life and business at the local, state and national level. The cynic would say that a primary motivation for entering local or even national politics would be the opportunity for personal gain offered daily by publicly financed improvements. ... ... Thus, the benefits of a
tax-supported public work accrued once
more not to the benefit of the public at large, but to that of a very
limited and narrowly defined class, those who were rich enough to own
land in that location.
There are undoubtedly many other
problems to be resolved before
the ills of our society are cured; but what many do not recognize and
understand is the primacy of the adoption of land value taxation over
all these other corrections. The reason for that can be very simply
stated: If any of these other measures already adopted have no
merit and have only added to the burden of our problems, then they
are disqualified at the outset. On the other hand, if they are of
themselves beneficial, any benefit from them will be immediately
capitalized into land values and will therefore exacerbate the very
problems which otherwise might be helped toward a cure. Thus it
is that our first step toward any possible remedy for the awesome
plight into which we have been led increasingly over the recent years
must be the adoption of land value taxation. ... read
the whole essay
Mason Gaffney: Interview: Is There a Conspiracy in the Teaching of Economics and History within the American Education System? The Progress Report - For an economics professor, you're said to be quite an expert on the environment, what's the connection? MG - Economic analysis, properly used, can serve the cause of environmentalism. The neo-classical economists abused both economics and the environment badly, as a byproduct of their drive to discredit classical political economy, and Henry George. John Bates Clark wrote that land is not scarce, that mankind can convert capital into land without limit, and create as much as we please. He wrote that natural resources have no value to mankind until and unless they are privatized; that privatization itself is what creates value. Our universities churn out thousands of new economists yearly, imbued with such attitudes. When Rachel Carson kicked off the new environmentalism in 1962 with her "Silent Spring," most economists trashed or disdained her: they 'd been trained that way. Faced with the obvious growth of environmental sentiment, economists dealt with it as they have with other problems: they absorbed it in the discipline, then marginalized it. Now they can say it is part of economics, while they proceed to ignore or trivialize it in their major policy pronouncements, wherein endless territorial expansion continues to be not just a goal, but a necessity to make the system work. The legitimate goals of environmentalists, they coopt and distort. Here are two examples.
Thank you, John B. Clark; thank
you, neo-classical economics. It
all follows from Clark's efforts to avoid any recognition that
natural resources are common property: in this case, the air itself
is turned into private property. Your very right to breathe, you have
to buy from major owners of the air. And how did they establish that
ownership? By their track records of dumping their crud in the air in
the past. It beggars belief, but there it is: it shows what the war
against Henry George has made of the discipline of economics. ...
read the whole article Mason Gaffney: Full Employment, Growth And Progress On A Small Planet: Relieving Poverty While Healing The Earth The servitude
of intellectual leaders. Academic economists are mostly kept by
landowners, or their bankers, or other special interests, obediently
to rationalize the system of which they are the high priests.
(Gaffney, 1997). (Today we would include thinktank intellectuals,
media pundits, and hate-radio commentators and talk-show hosts among
the high priests.) Read
the whole article
Mason Gaffney: Who Owns Southern California?
These same interests wield special influence on private and public
higher education, working behind the scenes. They stand in well with
the press: in fact, the Chandler
family of the Times-Mirror Company is one of them, owning the
vast Tejon Ranch. Scott Newhall was once editor of the San Francisco
Chronicle. (It is alleged by Stanley Sapiro that "the Newhall ranch was
assembled by the owners of the San Francisco Chronicle." ) They
dominate Chambers of Commerce. They generally dominate the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWDSC), the regional water supply agency, which has
long overtaxed the City of Los Angeles to subsidize expansion to
outlying areas.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is run by a Board of 50 Directors, representing 27 cities and districts that it serves. Those from cities are elected on the basis of "one-person-one-vote." Those from several outlying districts are elected by "one-acre-one-vote." Representatives from landowner-run districts remain the same from election to election, thus gaining seniority to dominate the 50-person Board. Thus a handful of speculative landowners have as many votes as millions of city residents. ... Accordingly, MWDSC preaches water conservation in the cities while it keeps annexing new speculations at its fringes. It is probably no accident that its current President represents the Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County, an area dominated by land speculators. Many economists have criticized its persistent refusal to consider any kind of economically rational, cost-justified rate structure. Read the whole article Mason Gaffney: Nonpoint Pollution: Tractable Solutions to Intractable Problems THE
COMMON THEME FROM
FOREST, CITY AND FARM
Market failure, public programs and perverse incentives in the land market create a gross bias towards spreading out too much. This aggravates otherwise fairly tractable runoff problems. The more Tierra Desnuda, the more runoff. This perversion does not occur by accident. Spread and sprawl in forestry, cities and agriculture are common results of the dominant force driving American politics, the quest for unearned increments to land value. Thorstein Veblen in his final testament, Absentee Ownership, noted that American farmers ...have
always, ... wanted something more than their ... share of
the soil; not because they were driven by a felt need of doing more
than their fair share of work ..., but with a view to ... getting
a little something for nothing in allowing their holdings to be turned
to account (Veblen, pp. 138-40).
To enhance those values they will now invoke any complaisant higher power, and since God already did His bit by donating the Earth, they turn to Government. But the profile of land values is like a volcanic island. To raise the top and the slopes and the shores we must also raise the shallows above sea level, where they shed the waters and come into use. Rising population is one factor pushing up the profile of values, but not the strongest one. Increased demand per capita is the main factor. These demands include all the spurious demands described above, like the demand of government for land to "bank" and hold idle, and the demand of speculators "with a view to getting a little something for nothing." Veblen went on to say that farm technology adapts to the Procrustean bed of absentee ownership: rather than leading, technology lags changes wrought by the ownership pattern. Thus it is not "society" or "efficiency" alone that mandate inorganic monocultural chemical farming, but also the peculiar needs of absentee owners holding more land than they can work themselves or with their families. Logic of, by and for this minority is set up as logic for all. If this be true, or (more likely) partly true, it must be admitted that most academics go along and get along with this dominant minority. Organic farming, biological controls, appropriate technology, IPM, and other countervailing logics had to come from screwballs outside the system, plus a few martyrs and kamikazes inside it, dominated as it is by accommodating "regular fellows," "good old boys," noncontroversial administrators who "understand local needs" and "work with community leaders," and complaisant faculty who enjoy "credibility." Are we part of the problem? Let everyone debate that with his own conscience, and be fair enough to lose a few points. SOLUTIONS The solution is land stewardship, a new‑old ethic to supplant the cowboy ethic in which western man has wallowed over several centuries of territorial expansion. To reprise from the section on forestry, we must synthesize two concepts of land stewardship. Concept A says "save for the future"; Concept B says put land to full use right now, to serve and employ people. Concept AB says do both, but each in the right place. Use the good land, use it well and fully, employ the workers, serve everyone's needs. Congregate and cooperate on central, low, flat, fertile ground, as efficient markets and efficient public policies would dictate anyway. Leave the marginal land in peace. But as we tiptoe into this new era let us not sell stewardship by making it too easy and trivial, lest we repeat the sorry history of SCS. We are all trained to be trivial, to make few ripples and no waves. We are conditioned by higher education, and disciplined by employers to accept and believe the basic premises of the system and contribute our mite, if any, only to reinforce or patch or adorn it. Hence the fascination of schemes like effluent charges and their analogues like excise taxes on surrogates. If those ripples look like waves to us, it shows how much we have to grow to deserve our ancestors. Excise taxes have their place, true, but the problems at hand are much vaster and deeper than little measures reach. Solutions call for basic reconstruction and reorientation more drastic than most of us dare contemplate. But let's try: it might even be fun. Dan Hoan had fun making Milwaukee work; he is as good a model as we need. ... Read the whole article Mason Gaffney: Canada's System of Revenue Sharing The federal aid in Canada goes to provinces, whereas in the United States it goes to specific cities, The U.S. Congressman likes to have his fingerprint, as they say, on every dollar that goes from Washington. The Canadian provinces are much larger and stronger, and fewer than the American States. There is much more horizontal balancing among provinces in Canada than there is among States in the United States. The Maritimes for instance get about 50% of their provincial revenues from equalisation entitlements. Fifty percent. Nothing in the United States matches that. In fact, if you look at the U.S. Constitution, it's quite specifically planned to prevent that sort of thing. Equalisation is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. On the contrary, there is a provision which you may be familiar with which says that direct taxes will be apportioned among the States according to their respective populations. So in the States the idea has been: Tax the States according to their population and then give the money back according to political power. In the United States Senate it means that the smallest State has just as much clout as the biggest State or would have if their senators weren't so merchantable. (I mean, in California when we need something we just look to Nevada or one of those places for a Senator who is having difficulty raising funds for his next election. But that's another story.)... read the whole article Alanna Hartzok: Who Would Jesus Tax? The Saga of Susan Pace Hamill's Alabama Tax Crusade A University of Alabama School
of Law Professor has asked God's
forgiveness for the years she lived in the sin of ignorance about tax
injustice. Susan Pace Hamill, a tax expert, business consultant, and
dedicated United Methodist church goer, thought there was a misprint
when she first read that personal incomes as low as $4,600 for a family
of four were being taxed by the state, while timber owners holding 71%
of the land of Alabama were paying less than $1 per acre in property
taxes. Two hours later she found out there had been no mistake and that
Alabama has the most regressive tax code in the country. Her righteous
rage spawned a tax crusade that has reverberated onto the national
scene.
"As somebody who knows a lot about taxes, I could not have imagined a design of a tax structure this bad," she said in a Tuscaloosa News story last February. "The state's tax code is really horribly unjust and has no moral, ethical leg to stand on. Period." Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent. Commercial property owners pay more than 50 percent of property taxes, with homes approaching one-third. Alabama's sales taxes are among the highest in the nation, up to 10 percent in some areas, and do not exempt even the most basic necessities such as food. The state's 1901 constitution was written primarily by large landholders to secure their economic interests, consequently property taxes are extremely light on their holdings. ...
"Alabama's tax system is most abusive because it taxes items like milk,
yet offers tax breaks for certain farm products," she said in a
Huntsville Times (3/26/03) interview. "It's also unfair to allow
timberland (which Hamill found out accounts for 71 percent of Alabama
land) to generate only two percent of all state property taxes."
Riley's tax plan, inspired in large measure by Hamill's prophetic tax
justice ministry, would bring in an additional $1.2 billion in revenue
while raising the income threshold at which families of four start
paying taxes from the current $4,600 a year to more than $17,000,
scrapping the federal income tax deduction, and increasing exemptions
for dependent children. It would give property tax breaks to small
family farms, while costing millions to the state's 500 or so farms and
timber tracts with more than 2,000 acres each, which includes companies
like Weyerhaeuser and Boise Cascade, which own hundreds of thousands of
acres.
"I've spent a lot of time studying the New Testament and it has three philosophies: love God, love each other, and take care of the least among you," said Riley (New York Times, 6/10/03, "What Would Jesus Do? Sock It to Alabama's Corporate Landowners") Unfortunately, Alabama voters overwhelmingly voted against the plan on September 9, 2003. Some said that the poor did not trust the Republican tax relief plan and the rich had solidly organized against it. Opponents made hay out of the proposed sales tax increase on cigarettes, cars and lawn mowers and services like car repairs in a state where sales taxes already reach 11% in some areas. ... read the whole article Henry George: The Irish Land Question (1881)
Peter Barnes: Capitalism 3.0 — Chapter 4: The Limits of Privatization (pages 49-63)
|
|
to
email this page to a friend: right click, choose "send"
|
||||||
Wealth
and Want
|
www.wealthandwant.com
|
|||||
... because democracy
alone hasn't yet led to a society in which all can
prosper
|