Letters on Taxation

Letter 11

Edwin Burgess

[1859]

On the 20th of August last "S.S." replied to my letters on an exclusive land tax for revenue under the head of "Taxation Reconsidered." He thinks it wrong that the farmers who, he says, "make the least cost of Government," should pay in proportion to the land which they own. I think if the farmers do make the least cost of Government it is because they enjoy their right of land, and are less exposed to the destitution, privation, and temptations of the landless. And this is one of the reasons why I put all taxes on the land, that none might monopolize the land which should belong to to others, to support themselves, and thus diminish crime and the cost of Government, and create the best home market for our home manufactures. For when the land is free and priceless, as it would be without the law, or as the land tax would make it, then the people can either farm or manufacture, whichever will pay better than the other, but with the high price of land caused by the labour tax, the landless and moneyless have no choice but to labour for others if they can get the work, or beg, steal or starve. So that it is not the honest and thrifty, but the lazy and greedy farmers and land monopolists who own vast quantities of land and cultivated but little, who make paupers, drunkards, and criminals of the landless, which "S.S." charges on the citizens, and would fain make the citizens support all the drunkards, paupers, and criminals whom the land monopolists have made. Why, he might as well buy up and monopolize the breasts of the mother, and then blame the babe for crying for its food, for the land is to mankind what the breast is to the babe, the source of subsistence.

I believe that no one has a moral right to land because he has bought it and paid for it, any more than the slaveholder has a moral right to the man, woman, or child he has bought and paid for; because no one can have a moral right to sell the land which belongs equally to all, or the man, woman, and child whose persons, liberty, and labour belong to themselves.

Does not "S.S." know that the land contains all the food of mankind, and that the land owners would charge the tax on the food they sold, just as the importer charges the duty which he advances on the goods which he imports? And thus the land tax would be the most equal possible and the least costly and corruptive also. For when the taxes are on imported good, only those who buy the goods pay the tax. Thus, the North buying three fourths of the imported goods pays one half the taxes of the South, and when the taxes are on personal property, the most industrious and saving pay while the idle and extravagant escape. And when the personal property consists of imported goods, which have paid one tax on importation, they will be taxed again in the hands of the wholesale and retail merchants for state, county, town, and city purposes, while the land pays taxes only for local purposes and not for the general government, and the product of labour is frequently first taxed as raw material and afterwards as manufactured goods.

Then, look at the folly of taxing hundreds of different things, when the land tax reaches everything and destroys land monopoly as well, because every dollar of the millions will then be expended in the produce of the land, raw or manufactured, and thus do all pay taxes in the most equal manner possible and at the least possible cost, whereas when you tax hundreds of different things you make hundreds of times more cost, labour and difficulty to raise "revenue," while you give a premium on war, smuggling, piracy, robbery and murder, perjury and fraud, thus morally degrading mankind. "S.S." prints the word "tailor" in capitals - I suppose to remind me of my business. I am really proud of its usefulness. But does he suppose that telling what I was will alter the truth of what I say, or be a sufficient reply to my arguments?

"S.S." says that the land tax would cheapen food and raise manufactures, but, as I said before, the enterprising would equalize the value of their labour by working at whatever pays best which they cannot do without the use of the land.

"S.S." says the whole system of balances and averages would be changed, and this to the detriment and pecuniary ruin of the present and future farmers. Now, the farmers, as well as mechanics, could change their occupation if they found manufacturing more profitable, and much more easily than at present, because the land for the factory would cost probably nothing, and there would be no inquisitorial, pauperizing "labour tax" on manufactures to prevent them, so that it would be easier to commence farming because the land would cost less, and every implement and machine needed for cultivation would cost less also , and there would be no tax on the stock of the farmer or manufacturer, or on the improvements of either, so that the changes in values would be good for farming and manufacturing, and no "ruin " could result to present o future farmers or manufacturers from the land tax, but permanent prosperity to both.

"S.S." charges me with "class legislation, and professedly, designedly, unequal taxation." My conscience and, I think, my life denies it. But do we judge others much by our own moral condition? What facts are referred to to show my dishonesty? Rogue often cries Rogue to avoid suspicion and cast it on the innocent. The least truthful and honest have the least reason to suppose truth and honesty in others. "Judge not lest you be judged." I think "S.S." professes to believe good of us all.

What the argument of the French nobles or lords was I know not, but the English nobles put nearly fifty millions of taxes annually on the labour and less than two millions of taxes on the land. There humanity must starve to keep parks, pleasure grounds, game preserves, moors, etc., for the splendour of the nobility and aristocracy, while the landless must manufacture, beg, steal, or starve, and rely on foreign countries for their food. And this is what I would fain prevent in America and every country and nation of the world, and I proposed and advocated the land tax for that purpose.

"If skilless I've performed my part,
The error lies not in my heart,
My head's alone to blame."

"S.S." would claim that taxing all property has destroyed the aristocracy of France, which exists, to a great extent, through much less than in England. The following figuring may tell why:

County	Taxes on land	On industrial produce
England	1,183,000	49,432,000
France	23,250,000	17,500,000
Russia	3,999,000	3,667,000
Austria	7,779,000	7,700,000

The above I copied from an English paper about the year 1849. In all the above countries except England, more the half the taxes are on the land, and the riches of the aristocracy are just in proportion as the land is exempt from taxes.

"S.S." says: "If the great burden of the land tax causes one to sell out, the same cause will prevent others buying." I contend that the taxes will be much less, and consequently less burdensome, because the land being priceless, any persons, or at least many, could till the lands for themselves, whom we now keep as paupers and criminals. This would diminish the cost of government ( or taxes ), which will be less burdensome in proportion to the cheapness of land, and only the land kept idle or badly cultivated would be obliged to be sold, because it would not pay the tax. And non can rightly keep land idle and make others suffer for their indolence, else, if one man could buy all the land he might keep all of it idle except enough to support himself, and starve every one else to death.

"S.S." says: "At the price of produce resulting from an increase of producers and a decrease of consumers, the farmer cannot sustain himself and pay the increased and increasing tax." This is the old fallacy of supposing that cheap land would compel people to farm while manufacturing paid better.

"S.S" says: "But supposing the price remains relatively the same, what better is he off by paying a large tax to a government than paying the same amount in rent to a landlord?" I reply: Not only would the taxes be diminished by all the cost of the revenue service, but by that of every pauper and criminal who ceased to be landless, because of the free or cheap land, while the very rent to which "S.S." refers would be saved also by their owners, and all interest and usury would cease also, as all could easily own their own homes and all the capital they needed. Then bankers, brokers, and usurers would soon die out from the universal prosperity of mankind.

"S.S." says: "No man can have any more right to the soil another has bought than to the food that others have raised from it, or to the clothing or other products that he has earned by its cultivation." "S.S." still fails to distinguish between the land which naturally and morally belongs to all, and the produce of the land which naturally belongs to the producer. Suppose one man or many could buy all the land, who has a right to sell it? Would the buyers have the right to starve all the rest of mankind, and entail the land to their children? I think not, and there think the right of land is as inalienable as our existence, and that every on who buys the land of others ought to lose it, just as the slaveholder who buys a man, woman, or child ought to lose what he has paid for his covetous villainy.

"S.S." says: "When there is no other soil which he may acquire, and to which he may go, and no other food which he may procure, then he may assert a claim which will be the duty of others to heed." Now, as " no one can rightly make other suffer for what he enjoys," so no one can rightly own land to the injury of others - to drive them out of any country or neighbourhood. And this it is the duty of all speculators to heed, now and forever. And to make it the interest of the land monopolist to let such land alone, and to prevent the taxes on the product of labour which prevent production and employment, and to make it as easy as possible to commence and continue farming and manufacturing, and consequently to follow whichever will pay the best, are my principal reasons for advocating the land tax exclusively, and my continued examination only strengthens my conviction that I am right in theory and practice.


IN LOVE I'D PASS AWAY

Like the dew before the sunshine,
Like the light at close of day,
Like the fading of the autumn leaves
I'm passing now away.

The head of death is on me,
And he's welcome, as a friend,
For he suffering and sorrow brings
Unto a peaceful end.

When we cannot give back labour
For the labour we receive,
When our feeble words to harmony
The mind can scarcely weave;

When with pain and anguish sinking,
When our sun of health is set;
Then is not death a blessing
To help us to forget?

Then, welcome dissolution
To the body and the brain,
When I cannot give back labour
For the labour that I gain.

For I would not live a burden
To one of human kind,
To leave in debt and wretchedness
A loving one behind.

No! better when my toil is done
To peacefully depart,
And trust to loving sympathy
To heal the wounded heart.

Like dew before the sunshine,
Like the light of close of day,
Like the fading of the autumn leaves,
In love I'd pass away.

INTRODUCTION
Letter 1 * Letter 2 * Letter 3
Letter 4 * Letter 5 * Letter 6
Letter 7 * Letter 8 * Letter 9
Letter 10 * Letter 11