Agricultural Rents:
A Criticism of the Views of Ludwig von Mises

Vernon Hone

[Reprinted from the Henry George News, April 1952]

To the Editor:

The writer has just received copies of the February and March issues of the News. It seems that Dr. von Mises is in error when he says "there is under the Georgian scheme no reason for the farmer to move toward more fertile land," etc.

He assumes that as the soil is depleted the taxes will be reduced. This should not be the case. In order to assess the land fairly we must consider the average yield of similar land in a given area over a specified period of time and consider that as a constant unvarying factor. Thus those who build up their soil will not be penalized for doing so and those who simply mine the soil will not be rewarded by reduced taxes for their lazy and destructive methods of farming.

We who believe in the organic method of farming and gardening know that the soil can be built up as well as torn down. The single tax would furnish incentive to build up the soil in the same way that it would give incentive to the building of other improvements.

As the tax would not be reduced on farms which had been exhausted they would tend to be abandoned. The reduction in competition would leave a better market for those who had improved their soil by putting back the waste products, etc. A poor soil would mean a low sale value for buildings and other improvements.

No matter what may be the nature of an improvement, it must not be taxed so long as it can be shown to be an improvement and not a gift of Nature.