4. CONFORMITY TO GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION
The single tax conforms most closely to the essential principles of Adam
Smith's four classical maxims, which are stated best by Henry George 19 as
follows:
The best tax by which public revenues can be raised is evidently that which
will closest conform to the following conditions:
- That it bear as lightly as possible upon production — so as least
to check the increase of the general fund from which taxes must be paid
and the community maintained. 20
- That it be easily and cheaply collected, and fall as directly as may
be upon the ultimate payers — so as to take from the people as little
as possible in addition to what it yields the government. 21
- That it be certain — so as to give the least opportunity for tyranny
or corruption on the part of officials, and the least temptation to law-breaking
and evasion on the part of the tax-payers. 22
- That it bear equally — so as to give no citizen an advantage or
put any at a disadvantage, as compared with others. 23
19. "Progress and Poverty," book viii. ch.iii.
20. This is the second part of Adam Smith's fourth maxim.
He states it as follows: "Every tax ought to be so contrived as
both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little
as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of
the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the pockets of the
people a great deal more than it brings into the public treasury in the
four following ways: . . . Secondly, it may obstruct the industry of
the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of
business which might give maintenance and employment to great multitudes.
While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish or perhaps destroy
some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so."
21. This is the first part of Adam Smith's fourth maxim,
in which he condemns a tax that takes out of the pockets of the people
more than it brings into the public treasury.
22. This is Adam Smith's second maxim. He states it as
follows: "The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to
be certain and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment,
the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor
and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject
to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax gatherer."
23. This is Adam Smith's first maxim. He states it as
follows: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards
the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to
their respective abilities, that is to say, in proportion to the revenue
which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The
expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the
expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are
all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests
in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what
is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
In changing this Mr. George says ("Progress
and Poverty," book viii, ch. iii, subd. 4): "Adam Smith
speaks of incomes as enjoyed 'under the protection of the state'; and
this is the ground upon which the equal taxation of all species of
property is commonly insisted upon — that it is equally protected
by the state. The basis of this idea is evidently that the enjoyment
of property is made possible by the state — that there is a value
created and maintained by the community; which is justly called upon
to meet community expenses. Now, of what values is this true? Only
of the value of land. This is a value that does not arise until a community
is formed, and that, unlike other values, grows with the growth of
the community. It only exists as the community exists. Scatter again
the largest community, and land, now so valuable, would have no value
at all. With every increase of population the value of land rises;
with every decrease it falls. This is true of nothing else save of
things which, like the ownership of land, are in their nature monopolies."
Adam Smith's third maxim refers only to conveniency of
payment, and gives countenance to indirect taxation, which is in conflict
with the principle of his fourth maxim. Mr. George properly excludes
it. ...
c. Certainty
No other tax, direct or indirect, conforms so closely to the third maxim. "Land
lies out of doors." It cannot be hidden; it cannot be "accidentally" overlooked.
Nor can its value be seriously misstated. Neither under-appraisement nor
over-appraisement to any important degree is possible without the connivance
of the whole community. 27 The land values of a neighborhood are matters
of common knowledge. Any intelligent resident can justly appraise them, and
every other intelligent resident can fairly test the appraisement. Therefore,
the tyranny, corruption, fraud, favoritism, and evasions that are so common
in connection with the taxation of imports, manufactures, incomes, personal
property, and buildings — the values of which, even when the object
itself cannot be hidden, are so distinctly matters of minute special knowledge
that only experts can fairly appraise them — would be out of the question
if the single tax were substituted for existing fiscal methods. 28
27. The under-appraisements so common at present, and
alluded to in note 25, are possible because the community, ignorant of
the just principles of taxation, does connive at them. Under-appraisements
are not secret crimes on the part of assessors; they are distinctly recognized,
but thoughtlessly disregarded when not actually insisted upon, by the
people themselves. And this is due to the dishonest ideas of taxation
that are taught. Let the vicious doctrine that people ought to pay taxes
according to their ability give way to the honest principle that they
should pay in proportion to the benefits they receive, which benefits,
as we have already seen, are measured by the land values they own, and
underappraisement of land would cease. No assessor can befool the community
in respect of the value of the land within his jurisdiction.
And, with the cessation of general under-appraisement,
favoritism in individual appraisements also would cease. General under-appraisement
fosters unfair individual appraisements. If land were generally appraised
at its full value, a particular unfair appraisement would stand out in
such relief that the crime of the assessor would be exposed. But now
if a man's land is appraised at a higher valuation than his neighbor's
equally valuable land, and he complains of the unfairness, he is promptly
and effectually silenced with a warning that his land is worth much more
than it is appraised at, anyhow, and if he makes a fuss his appraisement
will be increased. To complain further of the deficient taxation of his
neighbor is to invite the imposition of a higher tax upon himself.
28. If you wish to test the merits in point of certainty
of the single tax as compared with other taxes, go to a real estate agent
in your community, and, showing him a building lot upon the map, ask
him its value. If he inquires about the improvements, instruct him to
ignore them. He will be able at once to tell you what the lot is worth.
And if you go to twenty other agents their estimates will not materially
vary from his. Yet none of the agents will have left his office. Each
will have inferred the value from the size and location of the lot.
But suppose when you show the map to the first agent you
ask him the value of the land and its improvements. He will tell you
that he cannot give an estimate until he examines the improvements. And
if it is the highly improved property of a rich man he will engage building
experts to assist him. Should you ask him to include the value of the
contents of the buildings, he would need a corps of selected experts,
including artists and liverymen, dealers in furniture and bric-a-brac,
librarians and jewelers. Should you propose that he also include the
value of the occupant's income, the agent would throw up his hands in
despair.
If without the aid of an army of experts the agent should
make an estimate of these miscellaneous values, and twenty others should
do the same, their several estimates would be as wide apart as ignorant
guesses usually are. And the richer the owner of the property the lower
as a proportion would the guesses probably be.
Now turn the real estate agent into an assessor, and is
it not plain that he would appraise the land values with much greater
certainty and cheapness than he could appraise the values of all kinds
of property? With a plot map before him he might fairly make every appraisement
without leaving his desk at the town hall.
And there would be no material difference if the property
in question were a farm instead of a building lot. A competent farmer
or business man in a farming community can, without leaving his own door-yard,
appraise the value of the land of any farm there; whereas it would be
impossible for him to value the improvements, stock, produce, etc., without
at least inspecting them.
... read the book