A Critique of the Single Tax
William C. Brann
[A follow-up response to
A
Defense of the Single Tax, by Thomas Flavin,
published in The Iconoclast, 12 August, 1897]
Ever since the appearance of my first courteous critique of the
Single Tax theory the followers of that faith have been pouring in
vigorous "replies"; but as my articles were directed to Mr.
George and not to his disciples, I saw no occasion for the latter to
intermeddle in the matter, and the tide of economic wisdom went to
waste.
Although a publisher is supposed to be privileged to select his own
contributors, and Mr. George had been requested to make reply at my
expense, the Single Taxers raised a terrible hue and cry that the
ICONOCLAST was unfair in that it "permitted one side to be
presented." In order to cast a little kerosene upon the troubled
waters I decided that they should be heard, and selected Dr. Flavin as
their spokesman, believing him to be the ablest of those who have
followed this particular economic rainbow into the bogs. So much by
way of prolegomenon; now for the doctor.
My very dear sir, I shall heed your advice to "rise above"
the abuse of those who mistake impudence for argument, and ignore the
discourteous remarks with which you have so liberally interlarded your
discourse. Doubtless you include yourself among that numerous tribe of
Texas titans who can "unhorse" me as easily as turning a hen
over; and having accorded you unlimited space in which to acquire
momentum, I would certainly dread the shock were I cursed with an atom
of polemical pride. Frankly, I wish you success -- trust that you can
demonstrate beyond a peradventure of a doubt that all my objections to
the Single Tax are fallacious, that it is indeed the correct solution
of that sphinx riddle which we must soon answer or be destroyed. At a
time when the industrial problem is pressing upon us with ever
increasing power, it is discouraging to hear grown Americans prattling
of "unhorsing" economic adversaries--priding themselves on
polemical fence, like shyster lawyers, and seeking victory through
sophistry rather than truth by honest inquiry. That is not patriotism,
but a picayune partisanship which I profoundly pity.
Regarding "the public concept of truth" which seems to
irritate you sorely, I will simply say that the people are slow to
accept new and startling truths like those promulgated by Galileo,
Newton and Harvey; but a truth, howsoever strange, GROWS year by year
and age by age, while a falsehood creates more or less flurry at its
birth, then fades into the everlasting night of utter nothingness.
That Mr. George's theory, after several years of discussion, is
declining in popular favor, and has never made a convert among the
careful students of political economy, is strong presumptive evidence
that it is not founded on fact. The more you hammer truth the brighter
it glows; the more you hammer Georgeism the paler it gets. It is not
for me to prove the fallacy of the Single Tax theory -- the onus
probandi rests with its apostles, and they but saltate from mistaken
premises to ridiculous conclusions. Like the German metaphysicians,
they are abstract reasoners who do not trouble themselves about
conditions. It is not well to sneer at "the great blind multitude"
because it fails to see the beauty or wisdom in the Single Tax, for
many a great man before Lincoln's time had profound respect for the
judgment of the common people. "Truth," say the Italians, "is
lost by too much controversy;" and while the Georges and Flavins
split hairs and spute and spout themselves into error, the hard-
headed farmer and mechanic, exercising their practical common-sense,
arrive at correct conclusions.
In saying that Mr. George has, by his sophistry, "deceived
hundreds of abler men than himself," I simply accredited him with
a feat that has been a thousand times performed. Carliostro was an
ignoramus and possessed very ordinary intellect, yet for several years
he succeeded in deceiving some of the wisest men of his day with his
Egyptian Masonry idiocy. Thousands of fairly intelligent people
believed poor looney Francis Schlatter a kind of second Messiah, some
of the ablest men of Europe were misled by half-crazy Martin
Luther--and Dr. Flavin regards Henry George's economic absurdities as
omniscience. The latter has "mistaken the plausible for the
actual," has deceived himself with his own sophistry, else he and
his few score noisy followers are wiser than all the rest of the
world, or, for the sake of gain or cheap notoriety, he's peddling what
he knows to be arrant nonsense. You may take as many "pinches of
snuff" on that proposition as you please.
All your remarks about land values, their origin and rightful
ownership -- the tiresome old piece de resistance of every Single Tax
discourse -- I answered fully in my two former articles on this
subject, wherein I also explained how the "unearned increment"
is at present appropriated by the public, and I cannot afford to
rethresh old straw for the benefit of Single Taxers who WILL write and
WON'T read. I will remark en passant, however, that by "unearned
increment" I mean exactly what I suppose Mr. George to
mean--increase in the market value of land for which the proprietor is
not responsible. This, I have explained, is already appropriated by
the public, because the total annual increase in land values in this
country -- barring betterments of course -- does not exceed the total
annual tax levied upon the land. There's always a boom in land values
here and there; but hundreds of millions of acres, urban and suburban,
have not increased a penny in selling price during the past decade.
The owners are reaping no unearned increment, but they are paying
taxes regularly into the public till.
"The exclusive creator or producer of a thing is the rightful
owner," says Dr. Flavin. Quite true; and as the only thing the
community creates for the land owner is the unearned increment, it has
no moral right to take anything more. The Single Taxers persist in
ignoring the fact that there is an EARNED as well as an UNEARNED
increment, and that the former is as much the property of the
individual as the barn he builds or the calf he breeds. Of this earned
increment more anon.
"The highest homage, the highest act of faith which the human
mind and heart can offer to God is to say he could not be God and
pronounce the Single Tax to be unjust!" O hell! That's not
argument, but simply empty declamation intended to tickle the ears of
the groundlings -- to raise a whoop among the gallery gods. As you
have suggested, "Come, let us argue with dignity and composure,"
instead of emitting fanatical screeches like fresh converts at a
Methodist campmeeting, let's see about this God of Justice business:
About 200 years ago a party whom we will call Brann, as that happened
to be his name "cleared" a farm in the wilds of Virginia,
enduring all the hardships and dangers of the frontier.
He built roads and bridges, drained swamps, exterminated Indians and
wild animals. His descendants helped drive out the British butchers,
some of them being scalped alive by John Bull's red allies, while
their wives and children were tomahawked. They contributed in their
humble way to secure the blessings of free government which the
present inhabitants of Virginia enjoyed. They helped support schools,
churches and charities and otherwise make the district desirable as a
place of residence.
Finally railways were built and stores opened, not to enrich these
people, but to be enriched by them. These conveniences added to the
value of the land, but were paid for at a good round price, as such
things ever are by the users. The land is now worth about $30.00 an
acre, and while this value is unquestionably due to the presence of
population,{sic} it is fair to assume that in two centuries the estate
has yielded that much in the shape of taxes. As the present owner, I
ask, has the Old Dominion against that property for unearned
increment? I say it has not; that the $30.00 an acre represents the
savings of seven generations of my ancestors; that while the community
created the land value, said value has been duly purchased and paid
for -- that it represents EARNED increment.
Unearned increment is not what Dr. Elavin is after; he would
confiscate the RENT of my patrimony; he would deprive me of the VALUES
created by my people -- would allow me no larger share therein than he
accords to the newly arrived immigrant from that damned island we call
England. If our God says THAT is just, then I want no angelic wings --
prefer to associate with Satan. Has the son a just right to wealth
created and solemnly bequeathed him by his sire? That land is as much
mine as the gold would be mine, had my people their savings in that
shape, and the rent is mine as justly as the interest on the gold
would be.
It is quite true that none of my clan CREATED that land; it is true
that I cannot show a title to it signed by God Almighty and counter-
signed by the Savior, any more than I can show a title from the same
high source to the watch I hold in my hand; but I have a title to all
the rights, conveniences and profits appertaining to control of the
land, issued by their creator, the community, for value received. I
have the same title to the land that I have to the watch; not to the
material made by the Almighty, but to whatsoever has been added of
desirability thereto by the action of man. The community has been
settled with up-to-date for both the land and the watch, but has a
continuing claim against them so long as it enables me to employ them
advantageously than I could without its assistance. If I sell my land
the purchaser receives in return for his money all those advantages
which it required so many years of toil and danger to win--he pays for
the sacrifices made by others in preference to going into the
wilderness and making them himself. The market value of my land is a "labor
product," just as my watch is a labor product, hence all this
prattle about relieving industry of governmental burdens by any
economic thaumaturgy whatsoever is the merest moonshine.
It is quite true that "the great middle class" does not own
the most valuable lots in New York and London; but I have the "chilled
steel" hardihood to affirm that not only the bulk of the land but
of the land values are in the possession of people who are poor as
compared with the occupants of those sumptuous palaces which the
George conspiracy for the further enrichment if Dives and the
starvation of Lazaras would exempt from taxation. The total wealth of
this nation is not far from 75 billions, while all the land, exclusive
of improvements, would not sell for more than 20 billion. The naked
land of our 5 million farms is estimated at about 10 billion, so that
leaves but about 10 billion for urban lands -- less than one-seventh
of the total value. I have no reliable statistics at hand showing what
proportion of urban inhabitants own their homes; but we may safely
assume that one-half do so. Now, if this be true, we may also assume
that the land values held by the very wealthy -- the people whom the
Single Taxers profess to be after, -- do not exceed one-fourth of all
land values, or one-fifteenth of total property values. Hence you see
it is quite possible for 250,000 to own 80 per cent of ALL values,
while the bulk of the LAND values remain with the common people. And
it is these common people that the Single Tax will crush for the
benefit of these 250,000 plutocrats, the bulk of whose wealth is in
personal property.
Sit down and think it over, doctor; you are really too bright a man
to be led astray by the razzle-dazzle of Single Tax sophistry. You do
your enviable reputation for intelligence a rank injustice by
mistaking poor old George for an economic Messiah, and if you are not
careful somebody will try to sell you a gold-brick or stock in a
Klondike company. Suppose that you and Hon. Walter Gresham occupy
residence lots worth $1,000 each, but that you inhabit a $1,500
cottage and he a $150,000 mansion; and suppose that your income is
$2,000 a year while his is $20,000: Do you think there is any
necessity for tearing your balbriggan undershirt because not compelled
to put up as much for the maintenance of government as your wealthy
neighbor? Is it at all probable that Gresham will become discouraged,
refuse to longer serve the corporations and sit in the woodshed and
sulk, even jump off the bridge, because taxed in proportion to the
property in his possession rather than according to the land he
occupies? If Col. Moody builds a million dollar cotton mill on
suburban land worth but $500 why should you refuse to sleep o' nights
because not required to pay double the taxes of that old duffer? As a
worthy disciple of Aesculapius you should know that too heavy a burden
on your own back is liable to make you bow-legged.
I suspected all along that the Single Tax would require several
able-bodied "corollaries" to enable it to effect much of a
reformation, to usher in the Golden Age. It were very nice to throw
unused coal and oil lands "open to all on equal terms," have
the government pipe off all their products for equal pay, then compel
operators by piling on taxes to maintain high prices to consumers "till
other companies got well on their feet" -- and a combination was
effected. If Rockefeller, Hanna, Carnegie, et id genes omnes tried any
of their old tricks "we might get after them" -- just as we
HAVE long been doing. These plutocrats are so afraid of our
politicians that there is danger of their dying of neuropathy. If the
coal, iron and oil operators advance prices we'll advance their taxes
-- for the people to pay. And I suppose that when the whiskey trust
get gay, the doctor will raise the rent of corn land, when the
cotton-seed oil trust becomes too smooth, he'll knock it on the head
by adding a dollar an acre to cotton land, and so on until we get the
cormorant fairly by the goozle.
It's all dead easy when you understand it -- works as smoothly as an "iridescent
dream" on a toboggan slide! We are continually discovering new
coal, iron and oil districts, and these are "open to all on equal
terms" -- I can acquire them just as cheaply as can Rockefeller
or Carnegie. Then what's the matter? I lack the capital to properly
develop them, to produce so cheaply as my wealthy competitors. Or if
able to become a thorn in the side of the great corporations they
either lower prices and freeze me out or make it to my advantage to
enter the syndicate. When Rockefeller lowers the price of oil he
lowers his rent; when I am either crushed by competition or taken in
out of the cold, he advances the price of oil. His rent is regulated
by competition for the use of oil lands -- you cannot make him pay
more than the market price. When you raise his rent you raise that of
all the other operators in proportion, and the same is the same as an
increase of the excise on whisky -- the people get a meaner grade of
goods at a higher price. If an ordinary man cooked up such a scheme as
that for the benefit of the people, I'd feel justified in calling him
a "crank," and I cannot conceive how a man like Dr. Slavin
can tack his signature to such tommy-rot. Before we can make the
Single Tax "a go" we've got to have government ownership of
telegraphs, railways, pipe-lines, etc., etc., and use the taxing power
to regulate prices just as the Republicans do the tariff -- and for
what? To humble the haughty landlord? Oh no; to knock the stuffing out
of capital -- so long wept over by Single Taxers as a fellow sufferer
with toil. Why not call the George system Communism? -- "a rose
by any other name," etc.
When the doctor get matters arranged it will really make no
difference whether a farmer is located in the black-waxy district, or
on the arid cactus-cursed lands of the trans-Pecos country, as he will
have to surrender to the public all he produces in excess of what the
poorest land in use will yield. He will have no incentive to study the
capabilities of his land and bring to bear upon it exceptional
industry, for he will be deprived of all the increase he can make it
yield by such methods. A will be placed on a parity with D because he
took the best land he could get instead of the poorest he could find.
Intelligence and enterprise are to have no reward under the new
regime. You can squat on a sand-bank or pile of rocks in any community
and be on a financial parity with the man whose black soil reaches to
the axis of the earth -- no need to bundle the old woman into a
covered wagon, tie the brindled cow to the feed-box and head for a
country where better land is to be had. There will be no temptation to
carve out a home in the wilderness, for later immigrants will set at
naught your toil and sacrifices and deprive your children of their
patrimony -- the best situated merchant in Waco will have no advantage
of the keeper of a tent store on a side street of Yuba Dam or
Tombstone. A tax will not longer be "a fine on industry" --
it will be a fine on fools.
My Galveston friend should not work himself into a fit of hysteria
because I declared that the George doctrine has had its day, it being
sheer folly to quarrel with a self-evident fact.
When Henry George first flamed forth he made a great deal of money
out of his writings, and has thus far shown no more aversion to the
silver than has your humble servant. His paper was doubtless launched
with a view of promoting his financial and political fortunes, for he
did not go broke publishing it "for the good of the cause,"
but promptly rung off when he found that it did not PAY, hence I fail
to see that he is entitled to any more credit than Col. Belo or
myself. I called attention to the failure of his paper, not in a
spirit of rejoicing over its downfall, but simply to accentuate the
fact, after giving some years to consideration of his rather pretty
platitudes, that people condemned them--that his heroic attempt to
reclothe with living flesh the bones of the impot unique had proven a
dismal failure. Now, my dear doctor, I have not undertaken in this
hasty article to fully expose this Single Tax fallacy, having attended
to that heretofore, but simply to answer a few of your arguments which
I had not hitherto heard. Let's drop the subject--let the dead go bury
its dead, while we devote our energies to LIVING issues.
|