Agricultural Distress, Its Cause and Remedy
C. H. Baildon
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
January-February 1929]
ACCORDING to the 1920 United States census the value of farm lands
and buildings in the State of New York was $1,425,061,470.00.
At that time the assessed valuation of the land alone of New York
City was over $5,000,000,000.00. At 5% net the land values of the
Metropolis would yield an income three and one half times greater than
the investment in farm lands and buildings combined. Allowing one half
of the census estimate for the value of buildings and one half for the
value of the land (a generous concession to land value, considering
the number of farms sold for less than cost of improvements) the
income from New York City lands would exceed the income from
agricultural lands seven to one. If we then take into account the
value of the lands within the boundaries of the other large cities and
towns of the State, and the natural value of mines, water powers and
quarries it is clear that farm land values are a very small percentage
of the State's total land values.
This condition prevails in greater or less degree in every State and
community throughout the Union. Everywhere agricultural land is low in
value. Everywhere city and town lands and natural resources, which
admit of monopoly, are high in value.
May not inequitable economic conditions generated by this wide
divergence in land values be the chief cause of agricultural distress?
May not an examination of these conditions show clearly what is the
matter with farming?
The farmer, on his cheap land, must toil long and wearing days, year
in and year out, to earn a living and pay his taxes, and all too often
the effort and the farm are abandoned. But the income in ground rents
and royalties from the valuable lands is so large that their owners
can, and do, live luxuriously without labor. Of the vast wealth
produced through the agency of modern inventions and and scientific
and industrial improvements agriculture receives a constantly
diminishing share while the coffers of the owners of valuable lands
and natural opportunities are overflowing. For them is the threshed
wheat, for the farmer the stack of straw.
The farmer is a land user. Farm buildings, improvements, continued
fertility and all farm products are the result of his labor the forces
of his mind and body applied productively to land; and in buying and
selling, in exchanging the products of the farm for the products of
other industries, he uses city and town lands.
The owner of valuable land may use it himself, or permit others to
use it on payment of a fixed share of production, usually reckoned in
money, called rent; may speculate in it, or let it lie idle in
expectation of profiting from a rise in value. In any case ownership
without use produces nothing. Use alone produces all the great variety
of material things known to men as wealth; the food, clothing and
shelter necessary to sustain life; the luxuries; the tools, machinery,
buildings and materials used in production; the schools, universities,
churches, theatres and playgrounds which promote our physical, mental
and spiritual development. Every material thing, in fact, except the
Earth and its resources, the handiwork of the Creator of the Universe.
Likewise use, not ownership, creates the value of the natural
element. Where dense population and industrial activity cause an
intensive use of land, as in large cities and towns, land values and
rents are high. Where population is sparse and industry limited, as in
farming sections, land values and rents are low. The value of a whole
county of farms, improvements included, is often less than that of a
small lot in the business centre of a large city. Thus the plot of
ground in the City of Chicago, on which stands the Marshall Field
store, is assessed at $12,000,000.00, exceeding in value 1,000 average
western farms, buildings included (1920 census.)
While the production of wealth is by land users only (farmers,
miners, manufacturers, merchants) the division is between land owners
on the one hand and land users on the other. To the former as rent
paid for the use of land, to the latter as wages for their labor, and
interest on investments in buildings, machinery and improvements in
and on the land. The share that goes to the users of land is that part
of production which is left after rent is taken out.
The injustice of this division is evident when we consider what has
preceded, that ownership of land produces nothing and use everything.
The farmer complains bitterly and justly of the heavy burden of
taxation heaped upon hi shoulders, but does not seem to realize that
the high rentals exacted from industry for the use of valuable lands
is a far heavier burden, which, if not removed, will reduce him to the
condition of tenant or peasant. High rents for land drain the farm of
its wealth indirectly, but none the less surely, through the processes
of exchange, depressing the price of everything he sells and enhancing
the price of everything he buys. Whether he sells or buys he pays city
ground rents and city taxes to city landlords.
When the products of the farm are marketed transportation and selling
charges are deducted from the sales price. Included in these charges
are wages of managers and employees, interest on money invested in
buildings, transportation and selling facilities, ground rents paid
for the use of land, and taxes. When the farmer buys in town ground
rents and taxes are included in the price of the article he buys. A
merchant or manufacturer paying a heavy ground rental and taxes must
charge these "overheads" in the selling price or go out of
business. Transporters, manufacturers and merchants are entitled,
equally with the farmer, to a return for the services they render the
community in production and distribution, and often they secure as
little. But ground rents take toll without service in return, from the
producer and consumer alike. The "Middlemen" who rob the
farmer constantly the year round are not his companions in industry
but the unproductive landlords. Farmers are caught, as it were, both
coming and going. Taxed directly on their buildings, improvements and
personal property they also pay and cannot escape, under present
conditions, city ground rents and city taxes in the low returns
received for their produce and the high prices paid for farm and
household needs. Furthermore, since the use of land by industry is the
sole means of producing the necessities and comforts of existence, the
control of lands containing the raw materials which industry must have
in order to produce carries with it the power to take from the users
of land in the form of rent a large share of their product. Vast
monopolies in possession of the natural resources of the Earth aided
by unfair tariff and franchise privileges, through extensive
organization and combinations, restrict production, stifle competition
and control markets and prices. With the Steel Trust controlling the
iron ore output of the nation, with large areas of anthracite coal
lands held out of use and assessed at ridiculously low figures, with
forests, quarries, water and electrical powers in the hands of great
corporations is it surprising that farmers pay exorbitant prices for
coal, farm machinery, tools, and farm and household necessities?
How different is the lot of the tiller of the soil! By reason of the
wide extent and cheapness of the lands they cultivate and their
comparative isolation farmers are unable to effectually organize to
form monopolies of their products and control prices or to benefit
materially from special legislation in their behalf. They are in a
situation which forces them to compete with one another and all other
land users for the little that is left after taxes are paid, landlords
have collected their rents and the monopolies controlling valuable
natural resources have "cut their melons" and declared their
dividends.
The solution of the agricultural problem, the straight road to farm
relief, lies in the abolition of these conditions, in the release of
industry from servitude and monopolies.
The problem may be formulated in the query, shall land (all natural
resources) be used productively, as farmers, miners, manufacturers and
distributors use it, the rewards of use remaining with the user, or,
shall it be misused to rob the producer and the community as
speculators and monopolies selfishly misuse it?
The question carries its own answer. The producer is entitled to all
the rewards of use undiminished by taxes or the exactions of
monopolies, and the community to the to the rent of the land. In place
of taxes government should collect for public uses the rent of land
created by the growth and activities of the community and justly its
source of revenue.
If I were to neglect to pick the apples on my own trees and were
caught robbing my neighbor's orchard I should be at once arrested. Yet
each time the State collects taxes from the individual it does that
very thing. It neglects the apples of rent growing in the people's
orchard, and entering private grounds, robs the producer of the fruits
of his toil.
That distinguished American economist and lover of mankind, Henry
George, in his epoch making book, "Progress and Poverty,"
was the first to point out this fundamental error in government, the
injustice of taxing individual effort, and the injury that speculation
and monopoly in natural resources inflict on the users of land. Since
his time many communities and municipalities in many different
countries have enacted legislation decreasing taxes on buildings and
improvements and taking a greater share of rent for public purposes
Notably in Denmark, where farmers' organizations are enthusiastically
in favor of, and have secured the enactment of laws favoring this
reform. Farmers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina,
and in our own country, in North Dakota and California have worked for
and secured building and improvement tax exemption.
What are the benefits to agriculture which have induced these farmers
in so many different lands to look with favor upon the tax on rent,
named by Henry George, "The Single Tax?" In the first place,
all the multifarious taxes on farm buildings, improvements, machinery,
livestock and personal property, and on the exchange of products would
be abolished. Toward the support of government the farmer would make
annual payments based on the rental value of his land. Since the
rental value of land is low in farming communities and since
buildings, improvements, and the exchange of products would pay no tax
his contribution toward government would be light. The burden of
taxation would be lifted from his shoulders. The main support of
government would fall upon the valuable lands of the cities and towns,
and natural monopolies. The farmer could improve and stock his farm to
its fullest capacity unmolested by the tax assessor, and since rental
value is purely a location or site value, the improved, highly
cultivated farm would pay no more tax than land in the same
neighborhood grown up in weeds and brush. Possession and ownership
would be more secure than under present conditions, so burdensome and
unprofitable, that farms without number are sold for non-payment of
taxes, or abandoned.
Agricultural communities by their industry and the trade they bring
to town and city help to create the enormous land values in the
central locations. If we may believe the many fine things said of the
farm, that it is the backbone of the nation, that its youth replenish
the cities, that if farm operations ceased for but a few days the
cities would starve, then it is entitled to its reward, and what
reward more equitable than that farmers should share in the values
they help to create? Good roads, light and power could be extended to
remote communities, and more and better schools, universities,
hospitals and pleasure grounds could be made free to all.
When government in place of taxing industry shall collect its revenue
from the rent of lands all land owners will be placed on an equality.
Owners of valuable lands will have no advantage over owners of cheap
lands. They will then, like the farmer, find their profit in use, not
from the special privilege of collecting the ground rents belonging to
the people. Speculative value and speculative rent will be destroyed
but economic value for use will remain, and men will hold land not in
hope of speculative enrichment but for its utility value. The full use
of city lands and natural privileges thus brought about, encouraged by
the exemption from taxation of improvements, buildings and products,
will fully employ capital and labor, creating a profitable, extensive,
and permanent market for farm products.
Natural law gives to the toiler the full wages of his toil. To the
fisherman the fish, to the hunter the 'game, to the farmer the fruits
and grains, to industry its sure and just reward, and to communities
the rent of land, the "unearned increment" due to the growth
and activities of population. The holding of land out of use by
speculation and monopoly violates natural law. It denies users access
to the source of employment and robs them of their natural wage. It
creates an unnatural scarcity and high price of land and the raw
materials drawn from land. It causes rent to rise to speculative
heights, and since the division of wealth is between land owners and
land users, gain to land owners in speculative rents is loss to land
users in wages and interest. That the recognition of natural law in
our legislation would benefit agriculture immensely cannot be doubted.
Is not the farmer's wage the price he receives for his produce and
what are the improvements he has placed in and upon his land but the
wages of toil? Wages, as here defined, make up the income of the great
majority of farmers, rent contributes practically nothing. Only when
natural conditions of production and exchange lower the rent of land
and raise the wages of labor will the farmer come into his own and
attain that "equality in industry" so much talked about and
so little understood.
Such natural conditions and such equality were enjoyed by Agriculture
in the early days of the Republic. The untouched natural resources of
a great continent invited labor to full employment and full reward.
Unemployment for willing workers was unknown. Rents and taxes were
low, and although the production of wealth per capita was small,
agriculture, the principal industry, was prosperous and received its
just and equitable share. As settlement progressed, the growth of
population and demand for land caused an increase in value,
particularly in land located in towns and cities and in mining and
other natural privileges.
Opportunities for speculation and monopoly multiplies as the nation
grew until today unnaturally high speculative rents and excessive
taxes rob land users of the larger share of their production, with
agriculture, deluded by politicians and monopolistic propaganda,
suffering the most keenly of any industry.
I ask my fellow farmers, and all interested in farm relief, to
carefully consider the causes and remedy of farm distress, as here set
forth.
|